In a significant legal setback, the US Supreme Court has struck down sweeping tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, ruling that he overstepped his authority by invoking emergency powers meant for national crises. Yet, within hours of the decision, Trump made it clear that his tariff push is far from over.
While the court curtailed one route, several other trade laws remain available, and Trump has already signalled how he intends to move forward.
ALSO READ: ‘India Deal Is On’: Trump Reacts To US Supreme Court Decision On Tariffs
Supreme Court Rejects Emergency Powers Argument
The administration had relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), legislation designed to address extraordinary national emergencies. However, the court determined that using this law to justify broad-based trade tariffs exceeded presidential authority.
In effect, judges concluded that the emergency statute could not serve as a blanket tool for reshaping US trade policy.
Trump Signals Immediate Action
#WATCH | US President Trump says, “Effective immediately, all the national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs, remain in place… Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already… pic.twitter.com/aZXfKJA3Sc
— ANI (@ANI) February 20, 2026
Responding swiftly, Trump declared, “Today I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged and we’re also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.”
The statement underscores his intent to pivot quickly to alternative legal mechanisms rather than retreat from his broader trade agenda.
Section 122: The Fastest Temporary Option
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 offers one of the quickest paths forward. It permits the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% to address a large and serious balance-of-payments deficit.
However, the authority is temporary. Any measures under this provision expire after 150 days unless Congress grants an extension. That makes it a short-term instrument, potentially a stopgap while more durable strategies are prepared.
Section 232: National Security Justification
Another viable route is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This law allows tariffs when imports are deemed a threat to national security.
Trump previously used this authority during his first term to levy duties on steel and aluminium. Unlike the emergency tariffs that were struck down, Section 232 remains legally intact.
To activate it, the Commerce Department must conduct an investigation, a process that can take up to 270 days but offers a stronger legal foundation.
Section 301: Targeting Unfair Trade Practices
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides yet another option. It authorises action against countries accused of unfair trade behaviour. Historically, this mechanism has frequently been used against China.
Following an investigation by the US Trade Representative, tariffs imposed under Section 301 can remain in place indefinitely, giving this provision significant staying power.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer had previously indicated preparedness for such a scenario. He told The New York Times that officials were ready to act quickly if the court ruled against the administration. We will “start the next day”, to reestablish tariffs “to respond to the problems the president has identified,” Greer said.
He further added, “The reality is the president is going to have tariffs as part of his trade policy going forward.”
A Rarely Used Provision: Section 338
There is also Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a rarely discussed tool that allows tariffs of up to 50% against countries seen as discriminating against American goods.
Notably, this provision does not require an investigation and carries no time limit, offering sweeping authority. Trump officials have previously signalled that this could be used if other efforts faced judicial obstacles.
Import Licences As A Workaround?
Beyond direct tariffs, officials have floated the possibility of introducing import licences carrying fees for goods entering the United States.
However, this strategy was debated during oral arguments in the tariff case. If such licensing fees function effectively as taxes, they could face constitutional challenges, since taxation authority rests with Congress.
What Happens Next?
Although the Supreme Court has closed one door, multiple statutory avenues remain open. The White House had anticipated the ruling and reportedly prepared alternative legal strategies in advance.
Still, uncertainty remains over how quickly new tariffs could be implemented and whether they would withstand further legal scrutiny.
One thing, however, is clear: despite the court’s decision, Trump’s commitment to tariffs as a core pillar of his trade policy appears unchanged.
