Court Blocks Earlier Tariff Authority

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed sweeping global tariffs under a national emergency law. In a 6–3 decision, the Court determined that the statute used by the administration did not grant the president broad power to enact wide-ranging import duties.

The ruling effectively invalidated the previous tariff structure that had formed a key part of Trump’s trade strategy.

Immediate Response: 10% Global Tariff

Within hours of the decision, Trump announced a new 10% global tariff on imports, framing the move as a necessary step to protect American industry and maintain leverage in international trade negotiations.

Rather than relying on the emergency powers law rejected by the Court, the administration cited Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose temporary import surcharges to address balance-of-payments concerns.

Tariff Raised to 15%

Shortly after announcing the 10% rate, Trump increased the tariff to 15%, the maximum permitted under Section 122. The law allows such duties to remain in effect for up to 150 days unless extended or replaced through congressional action.

The White House said the temporary measure is designed to correct what it described as structural trade imbalances and to defend U.S. manufacturing.

Legal and Economic Implications

Unlike the authority rejected by the Supreme Court, Section 122 provides narrower and time-limited powers. Legal experts say the administration’s pivot demonstrates an effort to remain within statutory boundaries while preserving its broader trade agenda.

Economists warn that across-the-board tariffs could increase costs for businesses and consumers, while supporters argue they protect domestic industries and reduce reliance on foreign goods.

What Happens Next?

The new 15% global tariff is temporary under current law. The administration could seek congressional backing to extend or formalize the policy, or it may attempt additional trade actions under other statutes.

The Supreme Court ruling has also intensified debate over the limits of presidential authority in trade matters, setting the stage for potential further legal and political battles.

Sources: Al Jazeera, Forbes, BBC, White House