US Supreme Court kills Trump's tariffs: Recourses for White House
What's the story
Following the United States Supreme Court's recent decision to invalidate the tariffs that were enacted under emergency economic powers, the Trump administration is anticipated to seek out alternative legal avenues to maintain the core elements of its trade strategy. Previously, officials had indicated that the White House was prepared if the court should deal an adverse ruling.
Existing laws
Reverting to existing trade laws
The administration's first recourse could be to utilize long-standing trade statutes that empower the president to impose tariffs following investigations. Some of these statutes are Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the US to impose duties in response to unfair trade practices by foreign countries, and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which permits tariffs on national security grounds.
Past use
Laws already in use by Trump administration
US President Donald Trump has previously utilized these laws to impose tariffs on steel, aluminum, and various Chinese imports. Unlike the emergency powers granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, these provisions necessitate investigations and procedural steps. However, they fall within the president's legal authority. Another aspect that could be utilized is sector-specific tariffs.
Sectoral tariffs
Sector-specific tariffs unaffected by ruling
The ruling by the court does not affect tariffs specifically imposed upon sectors by Trump, such as steel, aluminium, and other goods. Several formal probes into tariffs remain underway, and these investigations could lead to additional tariffs on specific industries. Officials have indicated that these sector-based duties could be expanded if needed, offering a narrower but legally stronger path to maintaining trade pressure.
Tariff nomenclature
Revising and reframing tariff frameworks
Another alternative at the administration's disposal is to redesign tariffs by implementing negotiated trade actions or targeted measures that focus on specific countries or products, rather than applying broad, across-the-board levies. By narrowing the scope of tariffs and linking them to clearly defined trade violations, the administration could aim to achieve similar economic and political goals while minimizing legal risks.
Legislative backing
Tariffs backed by Congress
The administration might also seek explicit congressional authorization for new tariff powers, although this would be politically challenging and time-consuming. The court has clarified that tariffs whose scope is broad require explicit congressional approval. However, this may prove to be unlikely in the short term, although future trade options could have a solid legal foundation.