A Swift Response to the Supreme Court
Just one day after the US Supreme Court ruled that his sweeping tariff policy overstepped executive authority, President Donald Trump announced he would raise global tariffs from 10% to 15%, effective immediately.
In a social media post, Trump criticized the court’s 6–3 decision, calling it “ridiculous” and “anti-American.” The ruling found that he had improperly used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law typically reserved for sanctions, to justify broad import taxes. While other presidents have relied on the law for economic penalties, Trump was the first to apply it to tariffs.
Despite the setback, Trump insisted the decision only blocks one specific legal pathway. “We can use other statutes,” he said, arguing that alternative tariff authorities remain available and fully valid.
Congress, the Constitution, and Tariff Power
In its majority opinion, the court made clear that the Constitution grants Congress — not the president — the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the framers deliberately placed taxing authority in the legislative branch.
The ruling does not prevent the administration from pursuing tariffs altogether, but it limits the tools available. Emergency powers under IEEPA offered broad flexibility and speed. Other legal options, such as Section 301 or Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, come with tighter restrictions.
Section 301 allows action against unfair trade practices but requires formal investigations that can take up to a year. Section 122 permits temporary import surcharges of up to 15% for no more than 150 days, primarily in response to balance-of-payments crises. Both options narrow the White House’s ability to act quickly and aggressively compared with IEEPA.
Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has acknowledged that these alternatives are less powerful and less efficient than the emergency powers route the court struck down.
Legal Battles and Political Stakes
The original tariffs triggered lawsuits from Democratic-leaning states and businesses ranging from small importers to large retailers. They argued that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs and that the administration failed to meet established legal standards.
Trump has framed the issue as central to his economic agenda, even as public polling suggests tariffs are unpopular amid concerns over rising costs. Vice President JD Vance criticized the court’s decision, suggesting it undermined congressional intent to allow the president to regulate imports.
For now, national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 duties remain in place. Trump has also signaled new investigations into what he calls unfair trade practices, making clear that while some tariffs may fall, others will replace them.
