Supreme Court Tariffs Ruling — What It Means and What Comes Next

The Supreme Court’s decision striking down President Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is being viewed as a win for constitutional limits on executive authority. However, the ruling does not necessarily end the administration’s ability to impose tariffs. Even without IEEPA, several other laws still give the president broad powers to reshape trade policy.

Some of those authorities are well known. During his first term, Trump relied on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose tariffs on China and on steel and aluminum imports. But lesser-known statutes — including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — could allow similar policies to continue.

What the Court Decided

The Court concluded that the administration stretched IEEPA beyond its intended purpose when it used the 1977 sanctions law to apply broad tariffs across imports. The statute was designed to address national emergencies by freezing assets and restricting financial transactions, not to serve as a tool for rewriting tariff policy without Congress.

The ruling brings relief to businesses and consumers affected by rapidly shifting tariff rates. Analysts estimate the tariffs increased household costs significantly and created uncertainty, particularly for small businesses that struggled to plan amid constant policy changes.

Still, ending IEEPA tariffs does not eliminate unilateral trade actions altogether. Other statutes could be used to achieve similar outcomes.

Section 122: Temporary Import Surcharges

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the president to respond to serious balance-of-payments deficits by imposing import surcharges of up to 15 percent or setting quotas.

This authority could replicate much of the previous tariff structure relatively quickly because it does not require lengthy investigations. However, tariffs under this provision expire after 150 days unless Congress approves an extension. In theory, an administration could repeatedly re-declare an emergency and restart the process — a move that would raise constitutional questions but is not clearly prohibited in the statute. Courts have never tested its limits.

Section 338: Tariffs for “Discrimination”

Another option is Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which permits tariffs of up to 50 percent on countries deemed to discriminate against U.S. commerce.

The law is vague and rarely used. It assigns an advisory role to the U.S. International Trade Commission but does not clearly state whether presidential action requires its findings. The definition of “discrimination” is also unclear, potentially allowing broad interpretation. Because courts have never fully examined this provision, its boundaries remain uncertain.

The Larger Issue

Together with other trade laws, these authorities mean a president can still significantly influence tariffs and economic conditions without direct congressional approval. While the Court limited the use of IEEPA, many delegations of trade power from Congress to the executive branch remain in place.

The ruling therefore addresses one specific legal tool, not the broader structure of presidential trade authority. Lasting change would likely require Congress to revise trade statutes and set clearer procedural limits.

In short, the Court resolved one dispute over executive power — but the broader debate over who controls U.S. trade policy is far from finished.