Tariffs – Supreme Court Limits Trump’s Emergency Trade Powers
Tariffs – The White House has confirmed that countries which recently concluded trade agreements with President Donald Trump will now be subject to a temporary 10 percent tariff, following a Supreme Court ruling that curtails the administration’s authority to impose duties under emergency economic powers.
Court Decision Reshapes Tariff Authority
The decision by the Supreme Court of the United States prevents the president from using the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) as a legal basis for certain tariffs. According to a senior White House official, the administration had relied on that authority to levy duties on several nations, including India, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Japan, after negotiating new trade arrangements.
With that option no longer available, the administration has shifted to Section 122 of the Trade Act as the legal framework for imposing a uniform 10 percent global tariff. The White House described the change as an interim step while alternative legal pathways are explored.
Officials emphasized that the substance of previously negotiated trade commitments remains unchanged. Partner countries are still expected to adhere to agreed reductions in trade barriers and other concessions, even as the legal mechanism behind the tariffs has been adjusted.
Temporary Surcharge to Last 150 Days
A White House fact sheet stated that the new 10 percent import surcharge will remain in effect for up to 150 days, beginning February 24 at 12:01 a.m. The administration said the measure is intended to address structural imbalances in international payments and recalibrate trade relationships.
However, not all goods will be affected. Exemptions apply to select categories, including critical minerals, pharmaceutical products, certain electronics, passenger vehicles, aerospace components, and informational materials. These carve-outs are designed to limit disruption to strategic sectors and essential supply chains.
President Trump Criticizes Majority Opinion
President Donald Trump responded strongly to the court’s ruling, calling it disappointing and expressing disagreement with the majority’s reasoning. He publicly thanked Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh for their dissenting views, describing their opinions as grounded in constitutional principles.
Trump argued that while the court restricted the use of IEEPA for tariffs, it did not invalidate other trade authorities available to the executive branch. He maintained that existing national security tariffs under Section 232 and trade measures under Section 301 remain intact.
He further stated that the administration would continue using available statutes to pursue its broader trade strategy, suggesting that some alternative provisions may allow even broader tariff measures than those previously imposed under emergency powers.
Existing Trade Measures Remain in Force
Ambassador Jamieson Greer, a senior trade official, said the ruling affects only one component of the administration’s trade policy, specifically the reciprocal and fentanyl-related tariffs introduced under IEEPA. He noted that other established measures remain operational.
Current Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports range from 7.5 percent to 100 percent, depending on the product category. Meanwhile, Section 232 tariffs tied to national security concerns range from 10 percent to 50 percent and apply to roughly 30 percent of US imports.
The administration also announced plans to launch additional Section 301 investigations into what it described as discriminatory or burdensome trade practices. Ongoing probes involving Brazil and China will continue without interruption.
Trade Deficit and Policy Objectives
Greer defended the earlier use of emergency tariff powers, arguing that they were necessary to address issues such as fentanyl trafficking, immigration pressures, and the trade deficit. He cited government data indicating that the US goods trade deficit declined by 17 percent between April 1 and December 31, 2025.
Despite the legal setback, officials expressed confidence that negotiated trade agreements will remain effective. They said partner countries have engaged in discussions in good faith and are expected to uphold their legally binding commitments.
The administration has framed the temporary global tariff as a stabilizing measure while it evaluates new legal strategies. For now, the 10 percent surcharge under Section 122 serves as a bridge between the court’s decision and the next phase of US trade policy.