Washington D.C. – The Trump administration signaled Sunday it intends to maintain its tariff policies despite a Supreme Court ruling Friday that struck down key legal justifications for many of those duties. The decision, a significant rebuke to the former president, has prompted a scramble to identify alternative legal footing for the tariffs, with President Trump announcing a new 15% global tariff over the weekend.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, in appearances on ABC’s “This Week” and CBS’s “Face the Nation,” repeatedly stated that the policy itself hadn’t changed, only the “legal tools” used to implement it. This assertion comes as critics question the administration’s ability to continue its trade strategy following the court’s decision. The Supreme Court found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the imposition of tariffs, a method used for approximately 70% of all tariffs implemented during the Trump administration.
“The reality is, we want to maintain the policy we have, have as much continuity as possible, make sure that business understands this is the direction we’ve been going. We’re going to continue going this way,” Greer told ABC News. He acknowledged the administration is awaiting guidance from the courts regarding refunds for tariffs already paid, stating the Supreme Court “created a situation where they struck down the tariffs and gave zero guidance on this.”
The administration is now relying on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act to impose the new 15% global tariff, up from 10% announced immediately after the court ruling. Greer emphasized that these tariffs are distinct from the bilateral agreements reached with around 20 countries in the last nine months. “We want them to understand these deals are going to be good deals,” he said. “We’re going to stand by them. We expect our partners to stand by them.”
Jamieson Greer listens as Donald Trump speaks at a press briefing held at the White House on 20 February in Washington DC. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Supreme Court Ruling and Policy Shift
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling on Friday determined that the 1977 emergency powers law used by the Trump administration did not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs during peacetime. Traditionally, the power to levy tariffs rests with Congress, as outlined in the Constitution. While the administration maintains its commitment to the overall tariff strategy, Greer conceded that imposing emergency tariffs will be more challenging without the broad authority previously claimed under IEEPA.
The decision has drawn criticism from Democrats, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer calling the ruling a win for American consumers and an end to Trump’s “overreach.” “A president cannot ignore Congress and unilaterally slap tariffs on Americans… Now Trump should end this reckless trade war for good and finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve,” Schumer said.
Impact on Businesses and Consumers
The administration’s tariff policy, designed to incentivize domestic manufacturing and address trade imbalances, has faced criticism for potentially raising costs for American consumers. A recent ABC/Washington Post/Ipsos poll revealed that 64% of Americans disapprove of tariffs as an economic strategy. Victor Schwartz, a U.S. Wine importer and plaintiff in one of the cases that reached the Supreme Court, expressed relief at the ruling, describing a feeling of “elation” and “justice prevailing” after his business faced challenges due to the imposed tariffs, Fox News Digital reported.
Looking Ahead
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated that the administration would await guidance from lower courts regarding refunds for previously paid tariffs, but affirmed that revenue projections for the U.S. Treasury in 2026 remain unchanged. The administration’s reliance on Section 122 tariffs is temporary, as those tariffs are set to expire within five months unless Congress approves an extension. The future of U.S. Trade policy remains uncertain as the administration navigates the legal constraints imposed by the Supreme Court’s decision and seeks to maintain its core objectives.
The administration’s commitment to re-shoring American factories and addressing trade imbalances remains firm, despite the legal setbacks. The coming months will be critical as the administration determines the long-term path forward for its trade agenda.
What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court’s decision and the administration’s response? Share your comments below and join the conversation.
