>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
The roadmap Williams referenced comes from a dissenting opinion authored by Brett Kavanaugh, who disagreed with the majority’s reasoning. While Kavanaugh supported broader presidential authority under IEEPA, he also pointed out that Trump relied on the wrong statute—and that other laws still exist for tariff action.
Kavanaugh specifically highlighted the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Tariff Act of 1930 as viable alternatives. These statutes do grant tariff authority, but they come with limits—lower caps on tariff rates, time restrictions, and requirements that the president provide detailed findings to justify their use.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh bluntly noted that “the president checked the wrong statutory box” when imposing tariffs under IEEEPA—language that quickly became a focal point of the legal debate.
Trump, for his part, made no effort to distance himself from the dissent. In fact, he praised it publicly, saying he was “proud” of Kavanaugh’s reasoning and signaling his intent to move forward using other statutory tools. The administration has since pivoted toward Section 122 of the Trade Act as a temporary workaround.
Williams, however, cautioned that without IEEPA, Trump’s ability to move swiftly and aggressively is significantly reduced. He compared the situation to being handed the keys to a luxury vehicle—only to discover it barely runs.
“It is impossible for the president to get the kinds of tariffs, one, that he ran on, and two, that he tried to put in place on ‘Liberation Day,’ whatever it was, in April of [2025],” said Williams.
Despite the legal headwinds, Trump doubled down during his State of the Union address, declaring that his administration would continue pursuing tariffs through alternative legal pathways. He once again floated his long-standing belief that tariff revenue could eventually replace the federal income tax—an idea that continues to alarm Washington insiders.
Trump assured Americans that the administration is prepared to navigate the legal complexity.
The tariffs “will remain in place until fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes,” Trump said, adding, “They have been tested for a long time. They’re a little more complex, but they’re actually probably better.”
Legal analysts point out that Section 122 presents a major limitation: tariffs imposed under this authority can only last 150 days. Congress has already signaled it has little appetite to renew them, meaning the administration will need another legal strategy if it wants tariffs to endure.
Unless Trump can independently extend the tariffs after that 150-day window, the administration will be forced to pivot once again—or challenge Congress directly.
Still, officials insist the broader trade agenda remains unchanged. U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer made it clear that the ruling does not alter the administration’s direction.
“The trade policy we’ve had for the past year is going to remain the same,” Greer said.
“The Supreme Court came down and they said that there’s one element of the president’s tariff program where he couldn’t use that particular legal authority. Congress has given several other legal authorities. And so we’re just going to use those instead,” he added.
While critics celebrate the Court’s decision, even Trump’s opponents admit the fight over tariffs is far from over. The legal tools may be narrower—but they are still very much on the table.
