The administration’s stated fallback and the legal questions it raises
After the Supreme Court said the emergency powers statute could not be used to impose sweeping global duties, the White House signaled a quick pivot to a different legal route: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Senior officials and the president publicly described plans to use that statute — and in some public remarks the president announced a new across‑the‑board 10% tariff — as a way to restore much of the trade policy the court blocked.
Section 122 sits in a different part of the federal trade code and has been discussed by the administration as an alternative legal tool. The administration argues this avenue provides statutory authority that complies with the Court’s limits on emergency powers. But lawyers, trade experts and members of Congress say using Section 122 to impose broad, economy‑wide levies is likely to prompt its own legal and political fights.
Key practical stakes
- Litigation risk: Expect immediate court challenges. Opponents will argue that a blanket global tariff exceeds whatever narrow powers Section 122 confers and that the administration is again trying to enact major tax‑and‑trade policy without Congress.
- Market response: Announcements and legal filings will drive short‑term volatility in markets tied to imports, manufacturing and retail.
- Congressional pressure: Some lawmakers have signaled they will resist codifying or expanding tariff authority; others may seek to pass new legislation to clarify or constrain the administration’s options.
The practical result is uncertainty. The administration has signaled it intends to keep pressing its trade agenda, but using Section 122 replaces one legal fight with another. Whether such a move can withstand judicial scrutiny or political pushback will determine if tariffs return quickly, are scaled back or remain entangled in litigation and legislative bargaining.
