By Elsie Kamsiyochi
US President Donald Trump has reignited global trade tensions by announcing a new blanket 10% tariff on most imports, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the bulk of his previous global tariff regime.
The ruling, delivered in a sharply divided 6–3 decision, marked a significant legal setback for Trump’s trade agenda and underscored limits on presidential power over taxation.
Speaking angrily from the White House, Trump branded the court’s decision “terrible” and lashed out at the justices who ruled against him, accusing them of undermining American interests.
Nevertheless, he moved swiftly to replace the invalidated tariffs with a new levy, invoking a little-used statute in an effort to preserve his broader protectionist strategy.
Supreme Court Curtails Presidential Tariff Powers
The court ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority by using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping import taxes on goods from nearly every country in the world.
While the law allows the president to regulate economic activity during national emergencies, the justices concluded it does not explicitly grant the power to impose tariffs.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that Congress has historically delegated tariff authority only in narrow and clearly defined circumstances.
“Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly,” he wrote, reinforcing the constitutional role of lawmakers in setting taxes.
The decision united the court’s three liberal justices with two conservative justices appointed by Trump himself—Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch—while three other conservatives dissented. The unusual alignment highlighted the legal sensitivity surrounding executive power and trade policy.
Businesses and States Claim Victory, Eye Refunds
The ruling was welcomed by businesses, importers, and state governments that had challenged the tariffs, many of which argued the duties had dramatically raised costs and disrupted supply chains.
Financial markets reacted positively, with US stocks rising on expectations of relief from higher import taxes and reduced uncertainty.
The decision potentially opens the door to billions of dollars in tariff refunds. States such as California and Illinois have already demanded repayment, with governors calling the levies an “illegal cash grab.”
Small business owners involved in the lawsuits described the ruling as a lifeline, saying it could help them stabilize operations after months of unpredictable costs.
However, Trump quickly poured cold water on expectations of swift refunds, warning that any repayments would likely be tied up in years of litigation.
Legal experts cautioned that smaller firms may struggle to recover funds due to the cost and complexity of pursuing claims through the courts.
Trump Counters With New 10% Tariff Plan
Within hours of the ruling, Trump signed a proclamation imposing a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 of US trade law—a provision that allows temporary import taxes of up to 15% for 150 days, after which Congress must decide whether to extend them. The new tariff is set to take effect on 24 February.
The order includes a wide range of exemptions, covering certain minerals, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, agricultural products, electronics, and some vehicles.
Canada and Mexico will largely remain exempt under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Countries that previously negotiated trade deals with the US, including the UK, India, and the European Union, will now face the flat 10% rate instead of tailored agreements.
Administration officials said those countries are still expected to honor concessions made under earlier trade deals, even as analysts warned the move could strain diplomatic and economic relations.
A More Complicated Trade Landscape Ahead
Economists and trade specialists say the ruling and Trump’s rapid response have only deepened uncertainty. While the court curtailed one legal avenue for tariffs, the administration retains other tools—such as national security and unfair trade statutes—that could be used to impose targeted duties on specific sectors like steel, aluminum, and automobiles.
International reaction was cautious but restrained. European officials said they were reviewing the decision carefully, while French President Emmanuel Macron pointed to the ruling as evidence of the importance of democratic checks and balances.
Despite the court’s rebuke, Trump made clear he has no intention of retreating from his core trade philosophy. “We have alternatives—great alternatives,” he said, insisting that aggressive tariffs remain essential to boosting US manufacturing and investment.
For businesses, trading partners, and consumers, the message was clear: while the Supreme Court may have blocked one path, the era of tariff-driven trade policy in the US is far from over.
Source BBC
Original article
Comments