WASHINGTON, D.C. — Hours after the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs, the president signed a new order imposing a 10% global tariff under a different statute, a move that legal analysts say may face similar legal challenges. He later increased it to 15%.
The earlier tariffs were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court ruled that the law did not authorize tariff authority and cited the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional approval for sweeping economic actions.
Trump’s new order relies on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The White House argues the provision allows temporary import surcharges to address international payment problems. However, Section 122 specifically references “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits, a concept distinct from trade deficits and largely associated with fixed exchange-rate systems that ended decades ago.
Bryan Riley of the National Taxpayers Union said the United States has not faced a balance-of-payments deficit in more than 50 years, raising questions about whether the statute applies. Andrew McCarthy of National Review wrote that Section 122’s conditions appear unmet.
During litigation over the earlier tariffs, administration lawyers acknowledged that balance-of-payments deficits are “conceptually distinct” from trade deficits.
Any legal challenge to the new tariffs would likely take months to move through the courts.
Sources:
Discover more from News Facts Network
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
