Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pat_k

(12,511 posts)
43. Don't get too excited if SCOTUS declares Tariffs imposed under IEEPA to be illegal.
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 03:34 AM
Nov 7

His absurdly broad and unprecedented use of IEEPA looks like it is unlikely to stand up. Unfortunately for us, the regime will just come up with some "work around" and keep the tariffs in place, with each new play being subject of legal action.

Here's an Alert from Covington summarizing things the felon will try:

https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2025/11/dont-count-on-immediate-ieepa-refunds-what-president-trump-might-do-if-scotus-throws-out-ieepa-tariffs

The President possesses the authority to impose tariffs under a variety of trade statutes that he can turn to if the Supreme Court rules that IEEPA does not, or constitutionally cannot, provide broad tariff-setting authority to the executive. Some of these authorities, including Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, require the executive branch to conduct investigations and prepare bespoke reports before imposing new tariffs. However, two authorities empower the President to potentially impose tariffs without any predicate agency action: (1) Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which empowers the President to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent for a period of 150 days to address balance-of-payment problems; and (2) Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which permits the President to impose new or additional tariffs up to 50 percent without any durational limit to counter discrimination by foreign governments against U.S. commerce.

Neither of these authorities have been previously challenged in court. Section 122 has never been used, and Section 338 has also largely gone unused. In particular, Section 338 was invoked only a few times shortly after its enactment in 1930, but no president has directly applied it to impose tariffs. Because these authorities may allow the President to impose tariffs without preceding action from an agency or Congress, the President could notionally seek to invoke them in swiftly responding to a potential ruling from the Supreme Court holding IEEPA tariffs unlawful. There are at least two possible ways the Trump Administration—acting unilaterally—might try to use other legal bases to authorize tariffs previously collected under IEEPA. Both actions would present challenges, but the Administration has consistently pursued aggressive action in the face of uncertain legal landscapes, in the trade context and others. Alternatively, the President could attempt to work with Congress to retroactively authorize the IEEPA tariffs.


The two options that are detailed are:

A. The President May Rely on Other Tariff Statutes to Maintain Tariffs Imposed Under Existing IEEPA Executive Orders

B. The President May Rely on Tariff Statutes Outside IEEPA to Issue New Executive Orders to Apply Tariffs Retroactively



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"wholesale abdication." That's pretty much what the Republicans in congress have done! progressoid Nov 5 #1
To be fair, up to now, so has the 2/3 majority on the SCOTUS. MLWR Nov 5 #2
True. progressoid Nov 5 #3
Because they have already seen 45 and his cabal, wantonly violating court orders with no repercussions BumRushDaShow Nov 5 #5
So are they moving toward protecting separation of powers? If so, what does that mean for the Roberts court legacy? ancianita Nov 5 #7
I have another OP to post on this BumRushDaShow Nov 5 #11
Thanks for your thoughts. I'll look for that OP. ancianita Nov 5 #15
I fixed my reply to indicate "eliminate Legislative Branch" vs Executive Branch BumRushDaShow Nov 5 #19
Just posted BumRushDaShow Nov 5 #29
Will check it out. Thanks. ancianita Nov 5 #30
Nothing can turn the "legacy" of the Roberts corrupt supreme court, into a good "legacy". Escurumbele Nov 5 #14
I hear you. ancianita Nov 5 #16
He did leave the ACA hanging by a thread BumRushDaShow Nov 5 #24
we can only hope that's what they are seeing and thinking LymphocyteLover Nov 6 #39
Spinal Re-location TBD. maxsolomon Nov 5 #10
Yeah... progressoid Nov 5 #18
Physically impossible to substitute a wishbone for a backbone. BattleRow Nov 5 #25
Lets hope they found their spine and they are not just acting, that is what happened with the so called Escurumbele Nov 5 #12
2 of them are likely to be in the Epstein files. KS Toronado Nov 5 #22
I'm not so sure it's spine. We'll find out when they rule. pat_k Nov 5 #32
hear, hear jaymac Nov 6 #38
My nervous system goes into red alert any time any of the felon's minions speak. pat_k Nov 6 #40
Don't get too excited if SCOTUS declares Tariffs imposed under IEEPA to be illegal. pat_k Nov 7 #43
No shit popsdenver Nov 5 #4
Kick BlueWavePsych Nov 5 #6
Langston Hughes knows about Justice Mblaze Nov 5 #9
Well,this one's a trifecta..deaf,dumb and blind BattleRow Nov 5 #27
Gorsuch said, Mblaze Nov 5 #8
Of course the knuckle draggers that listen to Fox News et al progressoid Nov 5 #13
maga judges might be waking up to find their immunity ruling has come back to bite them -- ancianita Nov 5 #17
Agree but wasn't it a stipulation of the "immunity" that was granted the fact that THEY would determine an immune act Cheezoholic Nov 5 #20
Sure. They said that. Now let's see how they work it to the benefit of themselves. ancianita Nov 5 #23
The intoxicating air of entitlement BattleRow Nov 5 #28
"When you dance with the devil, you don't get to pick the tune." Perfect! pat_k Nov 5 #34
My speculation in post 32 is in line with this. pat_k Nov 5 #33
Yes. ancianita Nov 6 #42
I believe there is a Civil War in the Judiciary. pfitz59 Nov 5 #21
"the corrupt political appointees at the top are finally feeling the heat." BumRushDaShow Nov 5 #26
One thing about the shadow docket: The decisions can be challenged as failing to create any sort of binding precedent. pat_k Nov 5 #35
But the problem is that they allow the "move fast and break things" rapid destruction of many insitutions BumRushDaShow Nov 6 #37
I was on a long drive and heard most of the argument. TomSlick Nov 5 #31
'Are there any limits?': Justice Gorsuch presses Trump lawyer on presidential power - MSNBC Reports Rhiannon12866 Nov 6 #36
Congress is already abdicating the power to declare war to the President harun Nov 6 #41
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»'You Do!' Gorsuch Calls O...»Reply #43