As the U.S. Supreme Court wraps up oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and a companion case, the fate of President Donald Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs hangs in the balance. Invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, Trump imposed baseline duties of 10% on imports from nearly every trading partner in April, with escalations up to 50% on select nations like China, Brazil, and the European Union. These levies, tied to declared “national emergencies” over trade deficits and issues like fentanyl trafficking, have generated over $130 billion in revenue this fiscal year while fueling negotiations on everything from border security to intellectual property.
Yet, justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed some skepticism during Wednesday’s hearing about whether IEEPA — a law designed to curb presidential overreach in peacetime emergencies — grants the authority to impose revenue-raising tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts noted the statute’s silence on tariffs, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor bluntly called them “taxes,” questioning if IEEPA turns the president into an unchecked tax collector. Justice Amy Coney Barrett probed the implications, warning that upholding the tariffs could make it nearly impossible for Congress to reclaim its constitutional power over duties without a veto-proof majority.
Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit, already struck down the tariffs in unanimous and 7-4 decisions, respectively, ruling that IEEPA’s vague language on “regulating” imports doesn’t extend to broad taxation. Legal experts predict a similar outcome from the high court, potentially by year’s end, forcing refunds for affected businesses and states.
But here’s the deal: A loss wouldn’t gut Trump’s tariff playbook. White House officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, have openly signaled a “Plan B” — a arsenal of alternative statutes that could replicate much of the IEEPA regime. “We’re optimistic, but we’ve always prepared for every scenario,” Bessent told Fox Business post-hearing, emphasizing the administration’s contingency planning.
As one trade attorney put it, “The U.S. government has the authority it needs to try to recreate the IEEPA tariff regime if it chooses to do so.”
The IEEPA Impasse: A Law Meant to Limit, Not Expand, Power
Enacted to rein in the expansive Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 — which President Richard Nixon once used for a 10% universal tariff — IEEPA empowers the president to “investigate, regulate, or prohibit” imports during a declared emergency stemming from an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, foreign policy, or the economy.
Trump used this to cover trade imbalances and non-trade woes, like pressuring Mexico on migration or Brazil on political prosecutions or persecutions, as the case may be.
Critics, including small businesses like Learning Resources (an Illinois toy maker hit with $20,000 in unexpected duties) and Democratic-led states, argue this bypasses Congress’s Article I authority over tariffs.
A bipartisan amicus brief from 171 House Democrats and 36 senators hammered home that IEEPA was never meant as a “tariff statute.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the move, insisting tariffs are a milder “regulation” than full embargoes — a view echoed by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett, who questioned why IEEPA would allow trade shutdowns but not duties.
The court’s conservative majority appeared irresolute, weighing textualism against deference to executive foreign policy tools.
If struck down, the ruling would settle that IEEPA can’t be a tariff backdoor, curbing future presidents’ emergency gambits but leaving Trump’s broader agenda intact via other channels.
Plan B: A Menu of Tariff Authorities, With Strings Attached
President Trump’s team isn’t starting from scratch; they’ve already deployed some alternatives and are poised to scale up. These laws, born from decades of congressional delegations, offer explicit tariff powers but demand more transparency and limits — a trade-off for legal durability.
Here’s a breakdown:
| Statute | Key Provision | Tariff Scope & Limits | Trump’s Prior/ Potential Use | Drawbacks vs. IEEPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 | Allows tariffs if imports threaten national security (e.g., impairing domestic industries). Requires Commerce Dept. investigation (up to 270 days) and report to Congress. | Up to 25%+ on specific sectors/products; applies globally or targeted. No time cap. | Already imposed on steel, aluminum, copper, autos since January 2025; covers ~1/3 of imports. Could expand to tech, EVs. | Sector-specific (not country-tailored); lengthy probes slow unilateral action. Courts defer on “security” claims. |
| Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 | Authorizes tariffs against “unfair” foreign practices (e.g., IP theft, subsidies). USTR investigation required (6-12 months). | Broad, up to 100% on targeted goods/countries; can be phased. | Used in first term vs. China; new probe on Brazil’s ethanol/digital services in October 2025. Scalable for fentanyl or deficits. | Investigation delays; tied to trade violations, not politics (e.g., Ukraine war). Replicable for multiple nations. |
| Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 | Permits temporary tariffs/quotas to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits (i.e., trade gaps). | Up to 15% ad valorem for 150 days (extendable to 4 months with IMF consultation). Broad application. | Untapped by Trump yet; scholars argue it’s the proper tool for deficit-focused tariffs, not IEEPA. | Short duration; caps at 15%. Quick for emergencies but requires economic justification. |
| Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) Precedents | Broad wartime powers, narrowed by IEEPA for peacetime. | Historical use for universal tariffs (e.g., Nixon’s 10% in 1971). | Referenced in briefs; could inform hybrid approaches but largely superseded. | Peacetime limits make it risky; not a primary fallback. |
These tools could “essentially reimpose the IEEPA tariffs going forward,” per Brookings Institution analysis, though with “procedural speedbumps” like probes that prevent on-a-whim hikes.
The administration has already launched Section 301 probes on Brazil and could parallel-process others for China or the EU, buying time while pressuring deals.
Economic Ripples
A SCOTUS ruling that IEEPA can’t be used for Trump’s tariffs would trigger immediate refunds — a windfall for importers like Walmart and Target, who’ve absorbed billions in costs — but short-lived relief. In fact, reimposition via alternatives might amplify leverage in talks, as seen with Mexico’s migration concessions in 2019.
Yet, as Politico notes, no single law matches IEEPA’s “flexibility” for tying tariffs to non-trade goals like peace deals.
For Trump, and future U.S. presidents, that’s the real stake — not the ruling itself, but recalibrating his economic nationalism without the emergency declaration.
In the end, the court may close one avenue, but Trump’s tariffs will keep on truckin’. As the justices deliberate, global markets await the next chapter in America’s effort to recalibrate trade in a more reciprocal fashion.
MacDailyNews Take: Nearly all countries in the world impose import tariffs on goods from the United States, as tariffs are a standard tool for revenue generation, industry protection, and trade regulation. Out of approximately 195 sovereign countries (based on UN recognition), over 190 maintain some form of customs duties on U.S. imports, according to global trade databases.
There’s an exceedingly simple way for countries to avoid reciprocal U.S. import tariffs. Whatever tariff level you want is the tariff level you impose. If you don’t wish to face U.S. import tariffs, don’t impose tariffs on U.S. products and services.
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!
Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.
There is also such a thing as the Pacific Free Trade Agreement which Biden signed onto but which Trump rejected. That trade agreement allowed ALL countries around the Pacfic Ocesn to trade amongst themselves in a tariff free environment. It is still a functioning trade agreement amongst Pacific neighbors but the US is not part of it. And FTR American farmers and American citizens are feeling the brunt of that decision because THEY are all the people being impacted by the tariffs.
Both Bernie and Trump said they would end the Pacific Ttade agreement on day 1 and that’s what happened. That unrestricted trade agreement would have destroyed the US middle class permanently.
Trumps tariffs are destroying America. Countries outside America are choosing to do tariff free trade with other countries outside America. America is missing out on those deals because of Trunps insistence on Tariffs. US Soybean farmers can’t sell their crops because countries like China will no longer accept IS soybeans because of the tariffs. Also, soybean farmers get hit with the tariffs when they buy farm equipment that has components that are manufactured overseas. These increased component prices add to the cost of the farm equipment which farmers are already struggling to afford. Many farmers can no longer afford to eat because they don’t have income because they haven’t sold their crops. To summarize, Trump is a clueless fraudulent wannabe businessman who is fucking up the American economy and lieing about it on national TV.
Are you mis/dis-informed or just a liar?
China will suspend all of the retaliatory tariffs that it has announced since March 4, 2025. This includes tariffs on a vast swath of U.S. agricultural products: chicken, wheat, corn, cotton, sorghum, soybeans, pork, beef, aquatic products, fruits, vegetables, and dairy products.
China will purchase at least 12 million metric tons (MMT) of U.S. soybeans during the last two months of 2025 and also purchase at least 25 MMT of U.S. soybeans in each of 2026, 2027, and 2028. Additionally, China will resume purchases of U.S. sorghum and hardwood and softwood.
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Strikes Deal on Economic and Trade Relations with China – November 1, 2025
The most important trading partners are, right now, re-routing trade around America.
Canada, Mexico, China, Europe, Japan, and more, are all learning that they’re better off selling and buying from each other — trading around and without the unreliable partner — than trying to work with it.
Being at the center of the global economy gave America its global economic and political power. Shunning that central position makes the country weaker. Taxing goods makes the consumer poorer.
Don’t take my word for it. Listen to Ronald Reagan.
“disposableindentity” is either mis/dis-informed or a liar, too.
Consumer market size
United States of America: $20.501 trillion
China: $7.129 trillion
India: $2.306 trillion
Japan: $2.266 trillion
Germany: $2.160 trillion
United Kingdom: $2.005 trillion
France: $1.328 trillion
Brazil: $1.090 trillion
Italy: $1.043 trillion
Mexico: $1.002 trillion
Countries 2-10 total $20.329 trillion or $172 billion less than the U.S. A. alone.
Countries are not “re-routing trade around America.”
I don’t get my information from Trump or any other pro Trump news media. I prefer informed mainstream sources
“Informed mainstream sources!”
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Bless your heart.
The president should stop breaking the law.
The president should stop playing silly games with the other two branches of government, and start governing like a grownup.
Note the lack of specifics, just random regurgitation of whatever some puppet-master told them to believe on MSDNC last night.
Interesting that the groups spearheading the fight against the tariffs are overwhelmingly conservative, fighting on behalf of small business owners.
Farmers for Free Trade
The Cato Institute
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Cato Institute
New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA)
If tariffs didn’t work, 190 other countries wouldn’t have tariffs on American goods.
Tariffs = tax
If tariffs did work, those countries with the most tariffs would be richer than the USA, yet, the USA became the richest, most innovative, most dynamic economy in the world because it generally avoided tariffs.
Tariffs almost always become a vehicle for crony capitalism, influence peddling, graft, stifling competition, and choking innovation.
If our tariff situation is a national emergency, how did the USA become the richest, biggest economy in the world while we “ignored” tariffs.
The other thing is that Trump’s tariffs aren’t based in any kind of logic or economic reality. A trade deficit does not necessarily constitute an emergency, that is a complete misunderstanding of economics.
If the goal is reciprocal tariffs, why are we putting tariffs on countries like Brazil, with whom we have a $7 billion trade surplus?
Last year, the average Swiss tariff on U.S. goods was a minuscule 0.2 percent, bizarrely, Trump put a 39 percent tariff on imports from Switzerland.
Singapore does not charge any tariffs on imports from the United States. Trump charged 10 percent.
Vietnam charges an average tariff of less than 3 percent on American goods, but Vietnamese goods will face a 20 percent tariff under Trump.
And why should the US allow any one person to slap tariffs on a country just because a provincial governor put out a political ad that hurt his feelings. That is not a national emergency.
Synth makes some great points.
This ruling is less about the usefulness of tariffs, but what entity in our government should be setting tariffs. This is the job of congress.
Trump’s knee-jerk tariffs have a paralyzing effect on US businesses. 100% tariffs this month and 10% next month then up to 50%…
Tariffs on steel and aluminum hurt US manufacturing. It actually makes things the US does build and export more expensive and less competitive. Yes, tariffs on steel and aluminum are meant to spur more domestic production, but no US company is going to spend money to ramp up production or build a new steel plant with this haphazard application of tariffs. By the time they get anything done there is a good chance Trump will have changed the tariffs.
Correct, tariffs can be a useful tool in cases of price fixings or dumping über-cheap exports on another country or similar situations, AND with the approval of Congress.
But tariff = tax which is why no one person should have the ability to enact them without having to face the electorate every two years which is why taxation was delegated to Congress not the President.
On Sunday, president Donald Trump posted an image claiming that his predecessor Barack Obama had been collecting millions in taxpayer dollars from “royalties linked to Obamacare.” Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, the post further averred, had heroically intervened to halt the yearly payments of $2.5 million, which totaled to $40 million since 2010.
“WOW!” Trump wrote in the post, receiving nearly 18,000 likes and over 8,000 “ReTruths” on his social network Truth Social.
But these claims weren’t just false — they’re so outrageously fake that their actual origin was mocking anyone credulous enough to fall for them.
As many outlets quickly noted, the bogus item originates from a website called — we kid you not — the “Dunning-Kruger Times.” The name, of course, is a reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect, the well-observed tendency of particularly stupid people to vastly overestimate their abilities or intelligence. The name couldn’t be more on the nose if it was called “Website For Gullible Dopes Who Believe Anything They Hear.”
“Everything on this website is fiction,” the satirical site’s “About Us” page reads. “If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined.”
And this is the guy who thinks he understands tariffs and stuff.
MDN Take: “There’s an exceedingly simple way for countries to avoid reciprocal U.S. import tariffs. Whatever tariff level you want is the tariff level you impose. If you don’t wish to face U.S. import tariffs, don’t impose tariffs on U.S. products and services.”
Except Trump is NOT doing this. At all.