The Trump administration is pressing ahead with its aggressive tariff strategy, even after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs were illegally imposed.
In a 6–3 decision, the court struck down the administration’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as the legal basis for sweeping tariffs introduced under what Trump dubbed “liberation day” measures. The ruling reaffirmed that Congress, not the president, holds constitutional authority to levy taxes and tariffs during peacetime.
Yet, according to US trade representative Jamieson Greer, the legal setback has not altered the White House’s broader economic strategy.
“The policy hasn’t changed,” Greer said in interviews with ABC’s This Week and CBS. “The legal tools that implement that may change, but the policy hasn’t changed.”A New Legal Path: Section 122 Tariffs
Within hours of the ruling, Trump announced a new 15% global tariff on imports, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a different statute that allows temporary tariffs of up to 150 days without prior congressional approval.
The move effectively sidesteps the court’s rejection of the emergency-powers framework. However, unless Congress authorizes an extension, the new tariffs are set to expire within five months.
Greer emphasized that the administration seeks “continuity” and predictability for businesses despite the legal turbulence.
Existing Trade Deals Will Stand
Greer also insisted that previously negotiated tariff arrangements with major trading partners would not be abandoned. These include agreements with:
- The United Kingdom
- The European Union
- Japan
- Switzerland
- And nearly 20 other countries
“The deals are good deals,” Greer said. “We’re going to stand by them. We expect our partners to stand by them.”The Supreme Court ruling invalidated the legal foundation for some of those tariffs, but the administration argues that alternative legal tools can preserve their substance.
Domestic Backlash and Political Divisions
Public opinion appears sharply divided. An ABC/Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that 64% of Americans disapprove of tariffs as an economic strategy.
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called the ruling a victory for consumers and small businesses, accusing Trump of executive overreach.
California Governor Gavin Newsom labeled the tariff escalation “madness,” arguing it has contributed to slowing GDP growth, rising inflation, and weak job numbers.
Meanwhile, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the administration’s strategy, saying it remains committed to reshoring American manufacturing and correcting trade imbalances.
Business Community Relief
For many small importers, the ruling was a welcome development.
Victor Schwartz, a US wine importer who was among the plaintiffs challenging the tariffs, described the decision as “elation,” arguing that emergency tariffs imposed upfront had thrown thousands of small businesses into chaos.
The issue of refunds for tariffs already paid remains unresolved. Greer said the matter would be left to the Court of International Trade, while Bessent indicated the administration would await further judicial guidance.
Global Reactions
Internationally, reactions were swift.
China’s commerce ministry urged Washington to remove the tariffs entirely, warning that “there are no winners in a trade war.” Beijing signaled it would “resolutely safeguard China’s interests.”
India reportedly delayed sending a trade delegation to Washington amid the legal uncertainty, highlighting how tariff instability is affecting diplomatic and economic engagement.
What the Supreme Court Actually Said
The majority opinion made clear that:
- The 1977 emergency powers law does not grant the president broad authority to impose tariffs during peacetime.
- The constitutional power to levy taxes and tariffs rests with Congress.
- Executive authority cannot substitute for legislative approval in long-term trade policy.
Three conservative-leaning justices dissented.
Read More: How Modi ‘broke down walls’ between India, Israel, and Palestine’s expense
FAQs
What did the Supreme Court rule?
The court ruled that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs was unlawful. It reaffirmed that Congress has primary authority over tariffs.
Has the tariff policy ended?
No. The administration immediately announced new 15% tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary measures.
Will existing trade deals with the UK and EU be canceled?
According to Jamieson Greer, no. The US intends to honor those agreements despite the court ruling.
Could Congress step in?
Yes. Congress could authorize, modify, or block the tariffs. However, the administration has not indicated it will proactively seek congressional approval.
What happens to tariffs already paid?
That decision will likely be determined by the Court of International Trade. Refunds are possible but not guaranteed.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruling represents a significant constitutional rebuke to executive overreach. Yet it has not fundamentally altered the Trump administration’s commitment to tariffs as a core economic tool.
Instead, the legal battleground has shifted. By pivoting to Section 122 authority, the administration has signaled it will continue pursuing protectionist trade policies — even if the statutory mechanisms evolve.
The larger question now is whether Congress will reassert its constitutional role or allow the executive branch to keep testing the limits of its trade powers.
