President Donald Trump recently accused Canada of trying to influence a Supreme Court case that could determine the future of his so-called “reciprocal tariffs.” But even if the high court decides to strike those down, many other tariffs are beyond its reach.
That reflects the enormous scope of tariffs that Trump has unilaterally deployed against most countries this year, regardless of their relationships with the U.S. At stake in the Supreme Court case is whether Trump’s blanket import taxes on Brazil, India, Switzerland, and others are unconstitutional under the emergency authority drawn from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday in the closely-watched case.
The Trump administration, however, has issued a blitz of new tariffs under legal authorities separate from the one used to set up the global tariff regime. Last week, it announced a Section 301 investigation into Chinese compliance with a 2020 trade accord that Trump signed. That could result in more tariffs. The parallel structure is giving the White House more space to keep existing tariffs and add new ones even if some are struck down.
“You can see the administration potentially hedging some of their bets,” Colin Wilhelm, a policy analyst at the Grant Thornton advisory firm, told me.
About a third of the tariffs affecting U.S. imports are the product of Section 232 and Section 301 investigations. A Section 232 probe usually takes months to carry out through the Commerce Department, with its findings considered to be on sturdier legal footing. Under Section 301, the U.S. sets out to determine whether a foreign government’s trade practices are damaging to Americans on a similar timetable.
“The big things that Trump has done this term would not be affected by the IEEPA litigation,” said Peter Harrell, an international economics expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Tariffs that wouldn’t be affected by the Supreme Court case include the 50% steel and aluminum tariffs, coupled with a battering ram of import taxes on lumber, furniture, and copper. Tariffs on the latter three went into effect this month. Semiconductors also face a 100% tariff if firms aren’t moving their production and supply chains into the U.S. That one hasn’t kicked in yet.
Many legal scholars, economists, and some companies are arguing that Trump exceeded his authority to enact the global tariffs. Harrell helped assemble an amicus brief from 207 mostly Democratic lawmakers, one of more than three dozen briefs filed with the high court in recent weeks, both in favor and against. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was the sole Republican who signed onto the congressional brief.
Besides the tariffs, the high court will also determine the legality of Trump’s move to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
Trump has publicly displayed unease and frustration with the idea that the Supreme Court could strike down many of his signature, country-specific tariffs. He has argued that removing them would deprive the U.S. of enormous wealth, even though the country flourished for decades without such a wall of import taxes.
“If we win the tariff case, which hopefully we will, it’s vital to the interests of our country. … If we don’t, we’ll be struggling for years to come,” Trump said earlier this month in a Fox Business interview.
Tariffs are becoming a fixture of the economic landscape, regardless of which direction the Supreme Court goes.
“Even if the court rules against the administration on IEEPA, you have situations where there could be tariffs on more products that aren’t currently covered,” Wilhelm said. “It doesn’t mean that tariffs are going away.”
