Trump to impose new tariffs after SCOTUS rules IEEPA usage illegal

Trump also said he would leverage tariffs under the statutes already familiar with the metals community, Section 232 and 301.

Asked during a press conference if he would seek to work with Congress on any new tariffs, Trump said he would not, as the president has authority under those statutes.

“No need to, it’s already approved.” he said.

However, these other statutes are targeted and have restrictions. For instance, Section 301 allows import taxes only after an investigation by the Office of the United States Trade Representative. Section 122 has a cap and a time limit mentioned earlier.

Emergency tariffs unconstitutional

On Friday, the Supreme Court said Trump overstepped his authority by ordering import taxes on nearly every country using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) from the 1970s. It was a 6-3 vote.

“Recognizing the taxing power’s unique importance, and having just fought a revolution motivated in large part by ‘taxation without representation,’ the Framers gave Congress ‘alone…access to the pockets of the people.’”

“The Government thus concedes, as it must, that the president enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime.’”

Using IEEPA, Trump imposed a 25% duty on most Canadian and Mexican imports and a 10% duty on most Chinese imports, claiming those countries were trafficking drugs into the US.

The so-called “reciprocal” tariffs were imposed on trading partners of at least 10%, with dozens of nations facing higher rates. Since imposing each set of tariffs, the administration issued several increases, reductions, and other modifications.

Seeking compensation?

The 170-page court document leaves a big question unanswered — whether companies who paid the levies, and US citizens they may have passed them on to — will get a refund.

The duties netted about $142 billion in 2025, according to recent estimates from US Customs and Border Protection.

Asked if he would refund the money, Trump said, “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” he said. “So they write this terrible, defective decision, totally defective. It’s almost like not written by smart people. And what they do? They don’t even talk about that.”

Asked if he would fight the refunds, Trump said, “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”

The case will now return to the Court of International Trade, which will have to decide the appropriate remedy, including whether and how refunds should be processed, according to a briefing from the law firm Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A..

Reaction

Edward Meir, a commodities analyst and contributor to SMU sister publication Aluminum Market Update, said using the other statutes would be a check on Trump’s authority, “so he can’t just run roughshod as he’s been doing.”

“The world trade system depends on a degree of predictability,” Meir continued. “Just changing tariffs willy-nilly like this, it interferes with general trade flows, with investment decisions, with long-term planning.

“I’m not saying that this new system is going to be better, but at least people know there is a cap on tariffs, or that they are in place for only a certain period of time, or what have you.

Philip Bell, president and CEO of the Steel Manufacturers Association, noted the SCOTUS decision leaves other tariff mechanisms untouched.

“Critically, the Supreme Court’s ruling does not affect President Trump’s signature Section 232 steel tariff, cornerstone policies of America’s manufacturing renaissance. The Section 232 steel tariff is revitalizing the American steel industry, strengthened our national security, and fueled the creation of high-quality American jobs,” Bell said in a statement.

Likewise, Kevin Dempsey, president and CEO of the American Iron and Steel Institute, emphasized the ruling didn’t apply to Section 232 tariffs.

“In fact, the majority opinion distinguishes the authority granted to the president under Section 232 from the authority granted under IEEPA, noting that the Section 232 statute contains ‘sweeping, discretion-conferring language’ that IEEPA does not contain,” Dempsey said in a statement.

United Steelworkers International President David McCall blamed lawmakers for failing to appropriately address unfair trade in recent years.

“It’s an excess of short-term thinking and free trade ideology that got us into this mess. Now, we need sustainable solutions,” he said.

“We call on policymakers to prioritize revamping our trade system. This includes using tariffs and other trade remedies strategically, not to punish trusted allies like our Canadian partners, but to ensure American workers are able to compete on a level playing field now and for generations to come,” McCall said.

The National Association of Manufacturers issued a joint statement with Rockwell Automation, decrying the legal and policy uncertainty that ongoing tariff debate has bred.

“Manufacturers rely on stability to plan investments, grow operations and create jobs. Ongoing legal and policy uncertainty makes it more difficult to make the long-term decisions that drive American competitiveness,” the statement read.

It continued that now is the time for policymakers to work together to provide a clear and consistent framework for trade. “If tariffs are utilized as a tool, they should be targeted to countries engaged in specific unfair trade practices, particularly by nonmarket economies.”