Supreme Court kills Trump tariffs in 6-3 decision, 4 alternatives remain

the supreme court Trump criticized President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping “Emancipation Day” tariffs, ruling that the Constitution gives Congress – not the president – authority over tariffs.

But the decision may not be the final word. From the Trade Expansion Act to the Trade Act of 1974 to Depression-era laws, there remain multiple legal avenues that could allow Trump to reassert aggressive trade powers.

In a 6-3 decision he led George W. Bush– Appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court ruled that “the Framers of the Constitution provided [tariff] Power rests with Congress alone, despite the clear implications of tariffs in foreign affairs.

Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by George H.W. Bush, Justice appointed by Trump, Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice appointed by George W. Bush, Samuel Alito, have dissented.

The Supreme Court is preparing to take on a huge case involving Trump’s executive power and tariff authority

A protester holds a sign as the US Supreme Court hears arguments on President Trump’s tariffs on Wednesday, November 5, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

On Emancipation Day in 2025, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), drafted by former Rep. Jonathan Brewster Bingham, D-N.Y., to declare an emergency in which foreign countries would “steal” the United States.

With Roberts now closing that avenue, Trump could try to use the same national security logic to invoke the order Trade Expansion Act of 1962which in part allows the Department of Commerce to impose tariffs on “Article[s]…imported…in quantities or under conditions that threaten or weaken national security.”

Unlike IEEPA, the JFK-era law has been tested in the courts, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has since relied on his predecessor Wilbur Ross’ 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs under the law, adding another 407 imports to the tariff list on the grounds that they were “derived” from approved miners.

Trump’s own choices could hurt him on tariffs

President Donald Trump offers examples of non-reciprocal tariffs. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)

During his 2025 confirmation hearing, Lutnick expressed support for a “country-by-country, holistic” approach to tariffs and agreed with the president that the United States is “being treated horribly by the global trade environment.”

While the tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act are not immediate and require the Commerce Department to conduct a formal investigation, the law provides a court-tested means for the President.

In the wake of Friday’s ruling, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and others celebrated the court’s confirmation that Trump cannot use “emergency powers to enact taxes,” but Congress had previously approved another means of imposing tariffs.

Then the MP. Albert Ullman, a Democrat from Oregon, drafted a bill signed by President Gerald Ford that explicitly gave presidents broader authority to impose tariffs: the Trade Act of 1974.

Last September, a federal appeals court ruled against thousands of companies that challenged the tariffs imposed on China under Section 301 of the Trade Law.

6 House Republicans are challenging Trump on a key agenda item in the vote pushed by Democratic Democrats

In that case, Trump-appointed U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer could seek to impose retaliatory tariffs against countries with unfair trade barriers, according to the Monitor global politics.

An investigation would then follow, including negotiations with the targeted countries, and Greer may ultimately be cleared of imposing trade restrictions if the investigation finds that the United States is being denied the benefits of a trade agreement or that such a deal is unjustified.

However, in most cases, customs duties are imposed after four years, according to reports.

To Trump’s credit, the same logic that Roberts used to strike down IEEPA’s authority could arguably backfire on opponents of the tariffs because the 1974 law explicitly gives the executive branch the power to restrict trade.

Another section of the law signed by Ford could also be used to impose tariffs unilaterally.

Section 122, the “balance of payments” portion of the law, allows Trump to temporarily impose tariffs or import quotas in certain situations.

The President may impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days on all or some countries if they are found to be “maintaining[ing] Unjustified or unreasonable restrictions on U.S. trade.” Retail Industry Leaders Association.

“This authority is intended to give the Executive Branch the flexibility to respond quickly to trade practices that may harm U.S. economic interests or to correct large balance of payments deficits,” the trade group said in a June report.

However, reports indicate that Section 122 has not been widely tested in court, which could lead to lawsuits and legal uncertainty.

Supreme Court rules on Trump’s tariffs in key test of executive branches’ powers

There is another potential policy option for Trump, one that drew sharp criticism when President Herbert Hoover signed it against the advice of economists early in the Great Depression.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, named after Republican Senator Reed Smoot of Utah and Representative Willis Hawley of Oregon, imposed tariffs on tens of thousands of imports in hopes of protecting American producers facing difficult economic conditions.

Hawley’s granddaughter, Carrie Caesar of Baltimore, He told NBC News In 2025, she voted for Kamala Harris and opposed Trump’s tariffs after her predecessor’s name resurfaced in public discourse.

Other critics of Smoot-Hawley say this is the main reason the Depression was so dire and widespread.

However, the law still provides a mechanism for the Commerce Department to determine when a good is being “dumped” to American consumers or whether a foreign country is unfairly subsidizing exports to the United States, and to respond by imposing tariffs.

Additionally, while Trump imposed tariffs largely on a country-by-country basis, Smoot-Hawley requires that tariffs be applied on a product-by-product basis.

Besant warns of ‘enormous loss’ if Supreme Court overturns Trump’s emergency tariff powers

FILE – U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts speaks during a lecture to Georgetown University Law School’s class of 2025 graduates, in Washington, May 12, 2025. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File) (AP Photo/Manuel Bals Sinita, File)

The fifth path that is largely inaccessible to Trump is… Fordney-McComber Tariff Act 1922.

Senator Porter Macomber, R-Mich., and Representative Joseph Fordney, R-Mich., passed a bill allowing Republican President Warren Harding to impose tariffs much higher than they were at the time, hoping to protect American farmers from the sharp decline in revenues following World War I.

In one of the first contemporary rebukes of protectionism, Fordney-McComber was criticized for allowing tariffs of up to 50% to be imposed on countries, including allies. This is what the opponents said The unintended consequence was damage to America’s ability to service its war debt.

Fordney-McCumber was eventually replaced by Smoot-Hawley, and any remaining provisions were considered outdated after the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which President Franklin Roosevelt signed to roll back some of Congress’s trade restrictions.

Click here to download the FOX NEWS app

The RTAA transferred tariff authority from Congress to the President, granting the authority to conduct bilateral negotiations aimed at lowering tariffs at that time.

This dynamic, often called “reciprocity,” is being used under Trump not to lower tariffs but to raise them.