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

(13,328 posts)
43. Don't get too excited if SCOTUS declares Tariffs imposed under IEEPA to be illegal.
Fri Nov 7, 2025, 04:34 AM
Nov 2025

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 2025 #1
To be fair, up to now, so has the 2/3 majority on the SCOTUS. MLWR Nov 2025 #2
True. progressoid Nov 2025 #3
Because they have already seen 45 and his cabal, wantonly violating court orders with no repercussions BumRushDaShow Nov 2025 #5
So are they moving toward protecting separation of powers? If so, what does that mean for the Roberts court legacy? ancianita Nov 2025 #7
I have another OP to post on this BumRushDaShow Nov 2025 #11
Thanks for your thoughts. I'll look for that OP. ancianita Nov 2025 #15
I fixed my reply to indicate "eliminate Legislative Branch" vs Executive Branch BumRushDaShow Nov 2025 #19
Just posted BumRushDaShow Nov 2025 #29
Will check it out. Thanks. ancianita Nov 2025 #30
Nothing can turn the "legacy" of the Roberts corrupt supreme court, into a good "legacy". Escurumbele Nov 2025 #14
I hear you. ancianita Nov 2025 #16
He did leave the ACA hanging by a thread BumRushDaShow Nov 2025 #24
we can only hope that's what they are seeing and thinking LymphocyteLover Nov 2025 #39
Spinal Re-location TBD. maxsolomon Nov 2025 #10
Yeah... progressoid Nov 2025 #18
Physically impossible to substitute a wishbone for a backbone. BattleRow Nov 2025 #25
Lets hope they found their spine and they are not just acting, that is what happened with the so called Escurumbele Nov 2025 #12
2 of them are likely to be in the Epstein files. KS Toronado Nov 2025 #22
I'm not so sure it's spine. We'll find out when they rule. pat_k Nov 2025 #32
hear, hear jaymac Nov 2025 #38
My nervous system goes into red alert any time any of the felon's minions speak. pat_k Nov 2025 #40
Don't get too excited if SCOTUS declares Tariffs imposed under IEEPA to be illegal. pat_k Nov 2025 #43
No shit popsdenver Nov 2025 #4
Kick BlueWavePsych Nov 2025 #6
Langston Hughes knows about Justice Mblaze Nov 2025 #9
Well,this one's a trifecta..deaf,dumb and blind BattleRow Nov 2025 #27
Gorsuch said, Mblaze Nov 2025 #8
Of course the knuckle draggers that listen to Fox News et al progressoid Nov 2025 #13
maga judges might be waking up to find their immunity ruling has come back to bite them -- ancianita Nov 2025 #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 2025 #20
Sure. They said that. Now let's see how they work it to the benefit of themselves. ancianita Nov 2025 #23
The intoxicating air of entitlement BattleRow Nov 2025 #28
"When you dance with the devil, you don't get to pick the tune." Perfect! pat_k Nov 2025 #34
My speculation in post 32 is in line with this. pat_k Nov 2025 #33
Yes. ancianita Nov 2025 #42
I believe there is a Civil War in the Judiciary. pfitz59 Nov 2025 #21
"the corrupt political appointees at the top are finally feeling the heat." BumRushDaShow Nov 2025 #26
One thing about the shadow docket: The decisions can be challenged as failing to create any sort of binding precedent. pat_k Nov 2025 #35
But the problem is that they allow the "move fast and break things" rapid destruction of many insitutions BumRushDaShow Nov 2025 #37
I was on a long drive and heard most of the argument. TomSlick Nov 2025 #31
'Are there any limits?': Justice Gorsuch presses Trump lawyer on presidential power - MSNBC Reports Rhiannon12866 Nov 2025 #36
Congress is already abdicating the power to declare war to the President harun Nov 2025 #41
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»'You Do!' Gorsuch Calls O...»Reply #43