Why SC Court order is not the end of Trump's tariffs push? Expert decodes

The US Supreme Court has struck down US President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, ruling that he overstepped his authority by invoking emergency powers to impose broad levies on trading partners. The decision marks a significant institutional rebuke of Trump’s trade strategy, which relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify across-the-board duties.

Trump swiftly responded by announcing a fresh 10 per cent global levy under alternative statutory authority, dismissing the ruling as “terrible” and lashing out at the justices. The court’s majority included two of his own appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, a development that appeared to intensify his criticism.

What it does show is that institutions in the US can stand up

Seema Sirohi, senior journalist and columnist based out of Washington DC, said the ruling represents “one blow” but not the end of Trump’s tariff push.

“He cannot use the emergency power law that he was using to apply global tariffs,” Sirohi said in an interview. “But he has many other sections under trade law that he can deploy. They will be more cumbersome, but the same amount of tariffs can be put on countries.”

Constitutional separation of powers

The court judgement underscores the constitutional separation of powers, reaffirming that the authority to impose sweeping tariffs rests with Congress. However, Sirohi noted that Congress has already delegated substantial powers to the executive branch and the Office of the US Trade Representative, including the ability to launch investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act against countries deemed to discriminate against American interests.

“It’s not a technical blow so much as a political blow,” Sirohi said.

Also Read: US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's global tariffs

With midterm elections approaching, she pointed to signs of discomfort within Trump’s own party, with some Republicans in the House breaking ranks over tariffs.

“They don’t want to be associated with this kind of aggressive manner,” she said.

Potential future litigation

The ruling also opens the door to potential litigation over tariffs already collected, estimated between USD 133 billion and USD 170 billion over the past year, depending on the methodology. Companies may seek refunds, prolonging legal uncertainty and complicating the political narrative.

Also Read: No change in trade deal with India; it is on: Trump after SC verdict

Financial markets reacted cautiously. While equities showed modest optimism, the dollar and bond markets reflected lingering uncertainty over the trajectory of US trade policy.

“There’s cautious optimism,” Sirohi said, “but still a lot of uncertainty as to how things will play out.”

Implications for India

The implications extend to recently-negotiated trade arrangements, including a framework agreement between the US and India that reduced tariffs from 50 per cent to 18 per cent before the court ruling effectively reset certain levies to zero. Steel tariffs, imposed under separate statutory authority, remain intact.

Some critics in India argue New Delhi should have waited for the court’s verdict before finalising aspects of the deal. Trump, however, has insisted that the agreement stands, maintaining that India continues to pay tariffs to the US while American exporters face fewer barriers.

Also Read: Trade boost or strategic retreat? India-US deal beyond the rhetoric

“The picture is very muddy right now,” Sirohi said.

While some believe India could seek to renegotiate, she cautioned that clarity may take days or weeks as the administration recalibrates its legal strategy.

Restoring confidence in US institutions

More broadly, the decision could reinforce confidence in US institutions at a time when global partners have questioned Washington’s predictability.

Also Read: Struck down but not out: Furious Trump vows new 10 pc tariffs

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the overall level of tariff collections would remain unchanged, signalling the administration’s intent to preserve its trade posture despite the legal setback.

“What it does show,” Sirohi said, “is that institutions in the US can stand up.”