A recent Supreme Court ruling has significantly limited former President Donald Trump’s ability to impose broad tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but legal analysts suggest alternative avenues remain available. The Court rejected the administration’s use of IEEPA to justify sweeping global tariffs, arguing that the statute does not grant the president blanket authority to levy taxes on imports or manipulate trade on such a scale. Despite this limitation, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent has been highlighted as offering a potential roadmap for narrower, legally permissible tariffs under different statutes. These developments underscore the ongoing complexity of U.S. trade law, illustrating the intricate balance between executive power and congressional oversight in shaping economic policy. Observers note that while Trump’s broad “emergency” approach to tariffs has been curtailed, the administration still has statutory options that can allow for more targeted trade interventions.
Legal analyst Elliot Williams, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Obama administration and CNN commentator, discussed the implications of the ruling on The Bulwark’s “Illegal News” podcast. He emphasized that while the Court decisively blocked the use of IEEPA for global tariffs, Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent effectively charted a path for the president to exercise limited tariff powers through alternative legal frameworks. “Justice Kavanaugh did sort of lay out a bit of a roadmap for saying that, yes, there are avenues for the president to get some tariffs,” Williams explained. Kavanaugh’s dissent did not overturn the majority’s decision but highlighted the existence of other statutory tools that could allow the executive branch to continue managing trade in a more constrained manner. Analysts interpret this as a signal that while the expansive emergency powers Trump relied on are no longer viable, narrower legal pathways still exist, albeit with stricter limitations on scope and duration.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh explicitly identified statutes that could provide the president with authority to levy tariffs, including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Tariff Act of 1930. These laws allow the president to impose tariffs under specific circumstances, such as national security concerns, retaliation against unfair trade practices, or correcting trade imbalances. Unlike IEEPA, these statutes impose clear boundaries: tariffs must be temporary, capped at certain rates, and implemented only after specific findings justify their use. Kavanaugh argued that the president “checked the wrong statutory box” when issuing his previous tariffs under IEEPA, signaling that compliance with alternative statutes could allow the executive branch to achieve similar trade goals without exceeding congressional intent. Legal experts suggest that this distinction is crucial because it restricts the breadth and duration of tariffs, effectively preventing unilateral, large-scale economic interventions like those pursued previously.
Former President Trump publicly responded to the ruling, expressing pride in Kavanaugh’s dissent and outlining plans to pursue alternative tariff measures under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. At a briefing following the Court’s decision, he noted that while IEEPA could no longer serve as the basis for sweeping tariffs, the administration intended to continue using available legal authorities to maintain its trade policy. Elliot Williams contextualized this strategy, comparing the situation to winning a luxury car but being forced to drive an older, less powerful model. “It is impossible for the president to get the kinds of tariffs, one, that he ran on, and two, that he tried to put in place on ‘Liberation Day,’ whatever it was, in April of [2025],” Williams said. The analogy illustrates that while tariff authority still exists, it comes with limitations that constrain the scale, speed, and duration of economic actions previously undertaken.
During his State of the Union address, Trump reiterated his commitment to maintaining tariffs using alternative statutory authorities. He emphasized that tariff revenue could serve as a potential replacement for certain federal income tax streams and assured the public that existing tariffs would remain in place “until fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes” are implemented. Trump acknowledged that the alternative measures are more complex but argued that they may ultimately be more effective. Legal analysts caution, however, that Section 122 tariffs are temporary, lasting only 150 days unless Congress renews them. Given Congress’s current stance, experts suggest the likelihood of renewal is low, meaning the administration would need to explore further legal avenues if it wishes to extend tariffs beyond that period. This scenario underscores the procedural and legal challenges of maintaining a consistent trade policy without broad emergency powers.
The administration’s trade strategy is being closely monitored by legal and economic experts who note the delicate balance between executive authority and statutory constraints. U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer confirmed that the administration intends to continue its trade program using alternative authorities. “The trade policy we’ve had for the past year is going to remain the same,” Greer said, noting that the Supreme Court’s ruling affected only one aspect of the president’s tariff program. Greer emphasized that Congress has granted multiple statutory authorities that can be leveraged to continue implementing tariffs, and the administration plans to use these tools as necessary. Experts point out, however, that while this approach preserves the general direction of U.S. trade policy, it requires careful navigation to comply with statutory limitations and avoid legal challenges.
In summary, the Supreme Court ruling represents a significant check on executive power, curtailing Trump’s ability to impose sweeping tariffs under IEEPA. At the same time, Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent and other statutory authorities provide a constrained but viable path for the president to continue implementing tariffs under defined conditions. Section 122 of the Trade Act, along with the Trade Expansion Act and the Tariff Act of 1930, allows targeted, temporary, and lower-rate tariffs to address trade concerns such as unfair practices and national security risks. The administration’s response illustrates how legal rulings, executive strategy, and statutory frameworks intersect in shaping U.S. economic policy. Moving forward, trade policy will likely remain a mix of carefully calibrated statutory authority, ongoing judicial oversight, and political negotiation with Congress, reflecting the enduring complexity of balancing presidential powers with legislative limits. The ruling serves as a landmark example of how high-level legal interpretation can influence both immediate policy decisions and long-term strategic planning in the realm of international trade.
