Trump eyes alternative tariff authorities after Supreme Court rejection

President Donald Trump said Friday that the Supreme Court’s rejection of his global tariff authority does not constrain his ability to impose import duties on foreign goods. Trump announced he will immediately pursue a 10% global tariff under a trade law allowing duties for 150 days and directed his administration to initiate investigations under other statutes that could permit substantial tariffs with fewer procedural constraints.

Trump’s statement signals the administration intends to continue aggressive tariff policy despite the high court’s rejection of his preferred legal framework. The alternative authorities available to the president—some dating to the Great Depression—could enable significant import duties if the administration follows required procedural steps.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected President Donald Trump’s claim of sweeping authority to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision struck down the reciprocal tariffs—double-digit import taxes imposed on most countries—that Trump had levied last year.

Trump’s response and path forward

“Their decision is incorrect,” Trump said at a Friday press conference, calling the justices who sided against him “fools and lapdogs.” He said the ruling does not prevent him from imposing tariffs using other legal authorities.

“The Good News is that there are methods, practices, Statutes, and other Authorities, as recognized by the entire Court and Congress, that are even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President,” Trump posted on his social media platform.

Trump announced he will immediately pursue a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits such duties for up to 150 days. He also directed his administration to initiate multiple new investigations under Section 301 of the same statute, which has no legal limit on tariff size.

Alternative statutes for tariff authority

Two other statutes offer additional authority. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 permits tariffs on imports deemed a national security threat, with no legal limits. Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 permits tariffs up to 50% on imports from countries the president determines have discriminated against U.S. businesses, requiring no investigation and imposing no time limit. This statute has never been used.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits the president to impose tariffs on countries engaged in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable,” or “discriminatory” trade practices. There are no legal limits on tariff size, and duties remain in place for four years before expiring, though they can be renewed. Trump made extensive use of Section 301 in his first term, particularly against China. A Commerce Department or trade representative investigation and typically a public hearing must occur before tariffs are imposed.

Section 122 permits tariffs up to 15% in response to unbalanced trade for up to 150 days. Unlike Section 301, no investigation is required beforehand.

Section 232 permits tariffs on imports deemed a national security threat with no size limits, though the Commerce Department must conduct an investigation. Trump has used this authority extensively, levying tariffs on steel, aluminum, automobiles, copper, and lumber.

Section 338, from the Depression-era Tariff Act of 1930, permits tariffs up to 50% on imports from countries determined to have discriminated against U.S. businesses. No investigation is required, and tariffs can remain indefinitely. In September, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Reuters the administration was considering this option as a backup if the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s emergency-powers tariff authority.

Tariffs as centerpiece of policy

Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his second-term foreign and economic policy. He imposed double-digit reciprocal tariffs on most countries, justified by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national emergency. The average U.S. tariff rate rose from 2.5% in January 2026 to nearly 17% a year later—the highest level since 1934, according to Yale University’s Budget Lab.

Trump imposed these tariffs unilaterally, despite the Constitution specifically granting tariff authority to Congress. The Supreme Court’s rejection of his IEEPA authority does not end his tariff ambitions, but rather forces him to navigate alternative legal channels to accomplish them.