A potential Supreme Court ruling against President Donald Trump’s sweeping use of tariff powers could compel the White House to rethink its global trade strategy. But legal experts say that even if the Court strikes down Trump’s current approach, tariffs are unlikely to go away — they may just take a new legal form.
During oral arguments on Wednesday, the justices appeared sceptical of Trump’s claim that he could impose tariffs unilaterally under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The case was brought by small businesses challenging the administration’s global tariff hikes, which have driven US import taxes to their highest level since the Great Depression.
Despite that, analysts say Trump still has multiple tools at his disposal to continue taxing imports under different trade laws.
“It’s hard to see any pathway here where tariffs end,” said Kathleen Claussen, a trade law professor at Georgetown University. “He could rebuild the tariff landscape using other authorities.”
⚖️ Legal Limits vs Presidential Powers
Trump’s legal team has argued that the IEEPA gives the president near-unlimited authority to impose tariffs in response to “national emergencies,” including America’s trade deficit.
However, Neal Katyal, the attorney representing the petitioners, countered that Congress has already defined clear boundaries for presidential tariff powers under other statutes — and that Trump’s sweeping claim exceeds constitutional limits.
“Congress knows exactly how to delegate its tariff powers,” Katyal told the justices.
💸 Tariffs at Record Highs
Since returning to the White House, Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his second-term trade policy, imposing double-digit “reciprocal tariffs” on most trading partners.
The average US tariff rate has jumped from 2.5% in January to 17.9% — the highest since 1934, according to Yale University’s Budget Lab. Trump has defended the move by framing America’s trade deficits as a national emergency, even though the Constitution gives tariff authority primarily to Congress.
“If the Court strikes down my tariffs, the United States could be reduced to almost Third World status,” Trump warned earlier this week.
🧾 Alternative Tariff Powers
Even if the Supreme Court restricts Trump’s use of emergency powers, several trade laws still give him leverage to impose tariffs:
- Section 301 of the Trade Act (1974): Used to target “unjustifiable or discriminatory” trade practices. Trump applied it extensively against China during his first term.
- Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (1962): Allows tariffs on imports deemed threats to “national security.” Trump used it to target steel, aluminium, and even furniture.
- Section 122 of the Trade Act (1974): Permits tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address trade imbalances — though it has never been used.
- Section 338 of the Tariff Act (1930): A Great Depression–era clause enabling tariffs of up to 50% without investigation — something Trump’s aides reportedly view as a potential “Plan B.”
“To be the first president ever to use Section 338 could have some cachet,” said John Veroneau, former general counsel to the US trade representative.
🌐 Global Implications
A ruling against Trump could reshape US trade policy but not necessarily make it softer. Experts say Washington may still weaponize trade laws to pressure both allies and rivals.
For smaller economies already affected by US duties, that means continued uncertainty in trade relations, even if the legal rationale shifts.
“There are many ways for Trump to keep tariffs alive,” said Stratos Pahis of Brooklyn Law School. “The question isn’t whether tariffs continue — it’s under what authority they do.”
Originally published on 24×7-news.com.
