US Supreme Court strikes DOWN Trump tarifs 6-3

[putnam6]

So my understanding is that this does not affect textile and apparel tariffs on imports from China, double-checking I forgot my goto on tariffs 

I was primarily concerned about the immediate effect on my industry; any changes will not hit us...


 SCOTUS only considered tariffs issued under the IEEPA & struck those down.

President Trump primarily relied on IEEPA for sanctions & emergency-based restrictions. Numerous major tariffs were imposed under standard trade statutes, not emergency powers, so many remain in effect. x.com/ckurtzopks81/s…

• The post responds to a query about specific tariffs affected by a Supreme Court ruling, explaining that only those imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were invalidated, while others under standard trade laws persist.
  
• Issued on February 20, 2026, the SCOTUS decision limits President Trump's use of emergency powers for broad tariffs on imports, but spares measures like steel and aluminum duties enacted via Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
  
• This ruling narrows executive trade authority without dismantling Trump's overall protectionist framework, as non-emergency tariffs continue to influence U.S. imports from major partners like China and the EU.
  

Conversation

[/url]Election Wizard
@ElectionWiz

Subscribe


SCOTUS only considered tariffs issued under the IEEPA & struck those down.

President Trump primarily relied on IEEPA for sanctions & emergency-based restrictions. Numerous major tariffs were imposed under standard trade statutes, not emergency powers, so many remain in effect.
Quote




Chris Kurtz

@ckurtzopks81
·
1h
Replying to @ElectionWiz
Some tarries, which ones exactly? Who and how do they decide?

---

Grab your popcorn .


Regarding making deals  one country at a time in EU ...i dont think it`s possible , under EU law.

Yeah I do not know, now Im hearing not all new Trump tarrifs are subject to SCOTUS ruling 


 SCOTUS only considered tariffs issued under the IEEPA & struck those down.

President Trump primarily relied on IEEPA for sanctions & emergency-based restrictions. Numerous major tariffs were imposed under standard trade statutes, not emergency powers, so many remain in effect. x.com/ckurtzopks81/s…

• The post responds to a query about specific tariffs affected by a Supreme Court ruling, explaining that only those imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were invalidated, while others under standard trade laws persist.
  
• Issued on February 20, 2026, the SCOTUS decision limits President Trump's use of emergency powers for broad tariffs on imports, but spares measures like steel and aluminum duties enacted via Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
  
• This ruling narrows executive trade authority without dismantling Trump's overall protectionist framework, as non-emergency tariffs continue to influence U.S. imports from major partners like China and the EU.
  

---

• This ruling narrows executive trade authority without dismantling Trump's overall protectionist framework, as non-emergency tariffs continue to influence U.S. imports from major partners like China and the EU.
  

---

FWIW






Tony Seruga


[url=https://x.com/TonySeruga]@TonySeruga

Understand, the Trump Administration was ready for this ruling and will be proactive in executing other arrows in their quiver. 

Unaffected Tariffs and Key Alternative Authorities

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (national security tariffs):

These are intact and have been a cornerstone of Trump's approach. Examples include expanded duties on steel (up to 50%), aluminum, derivatives, automobiles/auto parts (25%), and ongoing or potential investigations into sectors like copper, lumber, critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, trucks, and aircraft.

The administration can reopen or expand these probes via the Department of Commerce, though they require an investigation (typically up to 270 days) and must tie to national security threats.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (unfair trade practices):

These also survive unscathed. Used extensively in Trump's first term against China (7.5%–100% on various goods), they allow tariffs after a U.S. Trade Representative investigation finds discriminatory or unreasonable foreign practices burdening U.S. commerce. New probes could target specific countries or products, though the process takes months.

Other potential tools:

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974:

Allows up to 15% import surcharges (or quotas) for up to 150 days (extendable by Congress) to address large balance-of-payments deficits or similar issues—seen as a partial, temporary substitute for broad "reciprocal" tariffs.

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930:

A lesser-known provision for additional duties in response to discriminatory foreign practices.

Section 201 (safeguard tariffs): For temporary relief from import surges injuring domestic industries (e.g., existing on solar cells/modules, set to expire soon).

Administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and USTR Jamieson Greer, have publicly stated they plan to "start the next day" reimposing or replacing invalidated tariffs under these clearer authorities. Preparations were underway pre-ruling, with expectations to keep the overall tariff burden in place—albeit more targeted, procedurally constrained, and slower to deploy than the IEEPA blanket approach.

JONATHAN TURLEY: "There's a lot of runway still for the administration..."  "The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It CAN actually impose tariffs under other statutes!"

---

Even more options from AOC...