A recent Supreme Court ruling limiting President Donald Trump’s use of broad tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act may still leave the administration with alternative legal pathways to impose certain trade restrictions, according to a legal analyst.
Elliot Williams discussed the decision during an appearance on the Illegal News podcast, where he explained that while the Court rejected the administration’s attempt to rely on IEEPA to impose sweeping global tariffs, one dissenting opinion outlined other statutory options that could still permit more limited tariffs.
Williams pointed to the dissent written by Brett Kavanaugh, which suggested that existing trade laws could provide a legal framework for the president to impose tariffs under specific circumstances.
“Justice Kavanaugh did sort of lay out a bit of a roadmap for saying that, yes, there are avenues for the president to get some tariffs,” Williams said during the interview.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh argued that broader presidential authority under IEEPA should have been upheld but acknowledged that several other statutes may still allow tariff actions. Among the laws he referenced were the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Tariff Act of 1930.
These laws permit a president to impose tariffs in certain situations, though the authorities are more limited. Tariffs implemented under these statutes are typically temporary, involve lower maximum rates than those previously used by Trump, and require the administration to present detailed findings justifying their necessity.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh suggested that the administration relied on the wrong legal authority when issuing tariffs under IEEPA, writing that “the president checked the wrong statutory box.”
Following the ruling, Trump said he was “proud” of Kavanaugh’s dissent and indicated that the administration intends to continue pursuing tariff policies through other legal mechanisms. The president has already begun exploring the use of Section 122 of the Trade Act as a potential pathway for implementing new tariffs.
However, Williams noted that these alternative authorities would impose stricter limitations and procedural requirements compared with the broader emergency powers that were rejected by the Court.
