Justice Brett Kavanaugh has provided a potential response for President Donald Trump following a Supreme Court ruling that challenges the administration’s use of emergency powers for imposing tariffs. This decision, which came down last Friday, concluded that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President the authority to implement such tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, supported by other conservative justices as well as the Court’s liberal members.
Kavanaugh, dissenting alongside fellow conservative justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, expressed strong disagreement with the majority’s conclusion. He stated, “Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward.” Kavanaugh implies that while the ruling limits the use of IEEPA, other federal statutes could still empower the President to impose tariffs without fitting the criteria outlined by IEEPA.
He cited alternative sources of authority, including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974. Kavanaugh argued that the ruling primarily indicates the President merely utilized the wrong legal justification. His analysis suggests that practical options remain for imposing tariffs, signaling that the fight over tariff powers is far from over.
Moreover, Kavanaugh raised the potential financial ramifications of the ruling. He warned that the U.S. might have to refund billions to businesses that had paid the now-stricken IEEPA tariffs. This raises concerns over the complexity and messiness of such a refund process, particularly given that some companies may have passed those costs onto consumers already. “In the meantime, however, the interim effects of the Court’s decision could be substantial,” he cautioned.
Kavanaugh also pointed to the broader implications for ongoing trade negotiations, suggesting that the ruling could create uncertainty in international relations. He noted that the IEEPA tariffs had been integral in facilitating trade deals with several key nations, including China and the United Kingdom.
For the year 2025, reports show that Trump’s administration collected a staggering $287 billion in tariff revenue, marking a significant increase over the previous year. This surge in revenue contributed to a substantial reduction in the federal budget deficit by $600 billion, demonstrating the economic impact of these tariffs. Trump’s team reportedly anticipated such a ruling and had already been preparing to pivot to other statutory bases for imposing tariffs should the Court’s decision come down unfavorably.
As Ted Murphy, a trade lawyer, pointed out last December, “Nobody thinks the tariffs are going away. They are just going to be reissued under a different umbrella.” This sentiment reflects a belief in the resilience of the tariff strategy, coupled with the capacity to reframe such measures in the face of judicial challenges.
Additionally, a strategy utilizing Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, previously employed to implement tariffs on imports like steel and aluminum, could be considered. Other provisions, such as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which could allow for temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent, remain in the administration’s toolkit to potentially sidestep the constraints imposed by the latest ruling.
Kavanaugh’s dissent emphasizes the ongoing battle over tariff authority, highlighting the continuing complexity and significant stakes involved. The dynamic nature of trade laws and pathways toward tariffs indicate that this legal struggle is anything but settled. Whether through traditional statutes or alternative provisions, Trump’s administration appears poised to navigate the legal landscape aggressively, ensuring its tariff strategies persist despite judicial obstacles.
"*" indicates required fields
