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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: 'You Do!' Gorsuch Calls Out Trump Lawyer For Arguing Congress 'Can Hand Off' Power to Declare War to President [View all]pat_k
(12,511 posts)43. Don't get too excited if SCOTUS declares Tariffs imposed under IEEPA to be illegal.
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 Administrationacting unilaterallymight 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.
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 Administrationacting unilaterallymight 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
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
'You Do!' Gorsuch Calls Out Trump Lawyer For Arguing Congress 'Can Hand Off' Power to Declare War to President [View all]
BumRushDaShow
Nov 5
OP
"wholesale abdication." That's pretty much what the Republicans in congress have done!
progressoid
Nov 5
#1
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 fixed my reply to indicate "eliminate Legislative Branch" vs Executive Branch
BumRushDaShow
Nov 5
#19
Nothing can turn the "legacy" of the Roberts corrupt supreme court, into a good "legacy".
Escurumbele
Nov 5
#14
Lets hope they found their spine and they are not just acting, that is what happened with the so called
Escurumbele
Nov 5
#12
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
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