A Supreme Court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump from using sweeping tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) may still leave other legal options available to his administration, according to legal analysts. Elliot Williams, a CNN legal analyst and former deputy assistant attorney general during the Obama administration, discussed the decision on The Bulwark’s “Illegal News” podcast. Williams explained that while the Court rejected Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose broad global tariffs, a dissent by Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to other statutes that could allow the president to impose tariffs in more limited ways.
Williams said Kavanaugh’s dissent effectively provided a “roadmap,” suggesting that tariffs could still be implemented under laws such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tariff Act of 1930. However, these laws place stricter limits on presidential authority. Tariffs imposed under these statutes are generally temporary, subject to lower maximum rates and require the administration to present specific findings to justify them. Kavanaugh argued that Trump had “checked the wrong statutory box” by relying on IEEPA.
Following the ruling, Trump praised Kavanaugh’s dissent and indicated his administration would move forward using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose new tariffs. Legal experts noted that Section 122 is only a temporary measure, allowing tariffs to remain in place for up to 150 days unless Congress approves an extension. Since lawmakers have signaled little support for renewal, the administration may eventually need to pursue another legal path.
