Trump Administration Maintains Tariff Options Despite Supreme Court Scrutiny
Washington – The Trump administration asserted today that it possesses multiple avenues to continue imposing tariffs on imports, even if the Supreme Court rules against its current broad use of emergency powers to do so.
During oral arguments yesterday, justices expressed skepticism regarding the administration’s sweeping claims of authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs as a matter of policy. However, legal experts suggest the president can utilize existing trade authorities, some dating back to the Great Depression, to maintain a protectionist trade stance. Georgetown trade law professor Kathleen Claussen stated, “It’s hard to see any pathway here where tariffs end. I am pretty convinced he could rebuild the tariff landscape he has now using other authorities.”
The administration could employ Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, already used extensively against China, to address perceived unfair trade practices. This allows for tariffs without specific size limitations, though it requires investigation and public hearings. Alternatively, Section 122 of the same act permits tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days in response to trade imbalances, requiring no prior investigation. The average U.S. tariff has risen from 2.5% to 17.9% since January, the highest level since 1934, according to Yale University’s Budget Lab. Further options include Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which has been used to impose tariffs on goods deemed threats to national security – even extending to items like furniture – and the rarely considered Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, also known as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.
The potential for continued tariffs comes as the administration defends its current tariffs, justified by longstanding trade deficits declared a national emergency. The case before the Supreme Court challenges the legality of these “reciprocal” tariffs imposed on nearly every country. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently indicated consideration of Section 338 as a backup plan, should the current approach be invalidated. For more information on trade law, see the World Trade Organization website.
Officials indicated the administration is prepared to utilize all available legal tools to protect American industries and address trade imbalances, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision.
