Trump finds new legal routes to keep tariffs after Supreme Court setback

President Donald Trump has found new ways to keep broad US tariffs in place after the Supreme Court ruled against his earlier use of emergency economic powers, analysts said.

This week, Trump imposed sweeping new tariffs on 60 trading partners, while 25 percent duties took effect on Brazilian products. He also used a separate, untested justification to impose 50 percent tariffs on many Canadian goods.

Wendy Cutler of the Asia Society Policy Institute said the actions demonstrated Trump’s continued support for tariffs and that they were unlikely to disappear while he remained in the White House.

The newest tariffs range from 10 percent to 12.5 percent and apply to goods from 60 economies starting Friday. They followed investigations into forced-labor concerns under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Cutler said this legal route was less likely to be overturned by courts because Trump’s trade official, Jamieson Greer, had carefully followed the required procedures before imposing the duties.

Trump used a different legal route against Canada, invoking Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Josh Lipsky of the Atlantic Council said the move was more concerning because the provision was untested.

The tariffs are based on Canada’s alleged discriminatory treatment of US exports and are due to take effect after one month. Lipsky described the measure as using tariffs as punishment, while Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute said the approach created uncertainty.

Trump’s newest tariffs are already facing legal challenges from small businesses.

Lincicome said courts had previously allowed duties imposed under Section 301, meaning legal challenges may instead focus on the official findings used to justify the action. He said courts typically did not want to rule on such findings.

Some critics argue that Trump does not have sufficiently broad powers to impose sweeping tariffs.

In February, the Supreme Court deemed illegal Trump’s use of emergency economic powers to impose a range of tariffs after he returned to the presidency.

The ruling did not affect sector-specific tariffs on steel, automobiles and other goods because they had been imposed under different legal authorities.

Officials have since opened Section 301 investigations, including into forced-labor concerns, to reinstate duties through alternative legal routes.

Lincicome said previous investigations had been more substantial. A first-term investigation into China took a year before duties were imposed, while investigations covering 60 economies, including the European Union and India, lasted four months.

Analysts also said the tariffs could be difficult for a future president to remove. Lipsky said the revenue they generated could complicate any attempt by a later administration to reverse them.

The Trump administration has reached 19 framework or reciprocal tariff deals, but further duties remain possible. Washington is investigating 16 economies, including China, the European Union and Japan, over excess industrial capacity.

Cutler said the administration had been careful not to exceed tariff levels agreed in bilateral deals, but trading partners were concerned that this assurance might not hold.

Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics said Trump was missing an opportunity to address larger problems, including China’s restrictions on rare-earth exports.

He said trading partners had to contend with both Trump’s tariffs and China’s export restrictions.

Cutler said countries had expressed disappointment but showed no signs of retaliation because they risked triggering further US tariff increases.