Vance Slams 'Lawless' Court as Trump Pivots to New Global Tariff Authority

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to strike down broad-based import tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) represents a watershed moment for U.S. trade policy and executive authority. By ruling that the Trump administration exceeded its legal mandate, the Court has effectively reasserted Congressional control over the nation’s "power of the purse," specifically the authority to levy duties. Vice President JD Vance’s characterization of the ruling as "lawlessness" underscores the deep ideological rift between the executive branch’s desire for flexible economic tools and the judiciary’s increasingly strict interpretation of delegated powers.

Historically, the IEEPA of 1977 has been the primary vehicle for presidents to impose sanctions and manage international economic emergencies. However, the majority opinion, led by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by an unusual coalition including conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, argued that the act does not grant the president a blank check to impose permanent taxes on imports. This distinction is critical: while the president can "regulate" commerce during emergencies, the Court has signaled that "regulation" does not inherently include the unilateral imposition of tariffs, which are constitutionally reserved for Congress under Article I. This ruling significantly narrows the "emergency" loophole that has allowed successive administrations to bypass the legislative process in trade matters.

“

President Trump’s rapid announcement of a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 is a tactical maneuver to maintain his "America First" trade agenda while navigating the new legal constraints.

The immediate fallout of this decision is a strategic pivot by the White House. President Trump’s rapid announcement of a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 is a tactical maneuver to maintain his "America First" trade agenda while navigating the new legal constraints. Section 122 allows for a temporary import surcharge of up to 15% for a duration of 150 days to address balance-of-payments deficits. This shift from the "emergency" framework of IEEPA to the "balance-of-payments" framework of the Trade Act of 1974 suggests a more litigious and fragmented trade environment ahead. Markets must now contend with the reality that major trade barriers may be subject to 150-day expiration cycles unless Congress intervenes or the administration finds more permanent legal footing.

Furthermore, the ruling leaves existing tariffs under Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair trade practices) untouched, creating a tiered and complex tariff regime. Businesses and importers will likely face a period of intense uncertainty as they recalibrate supply chains around these shifting legal justifications. The 150-day limit on Section 122 actions creates a "ticking clock" that could force either a legislative showdown or a series of rolling executive orders that will almost certainly be challenged in lower courts. The administration's argument that these measures are necessary for "supply chain resiliency" will now have to be proven under more rigorous statutory standards than the broad "emergency" definitions previously used.

From a market perspective, this judicial intervention introduces a new layer of "legal risk" to trade policy. Investors who had priced in a stable, albeit high, tariff environment must now account for the possibility of sudden judicial reversals or the expiration of temporary measures. The dissent by Justices Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh likely focused on a broader interpretation of executive power, but the majority's focus on statutory text suggests that the "Major Questions Doctrine" is being applied with increasing frequency to trade. This doctrine holds that if an agency (or the President) seeks to exercise power of "vast economic and political significance," it must have clear authorization from Congress.

Looking forward, this ruling may embolden trade partners to challenge other U.S. trade actions, sensing a weakened executive mandate. It also places the onus on Congress to either explicitly authorize broader tariff powers or accept a more constrained role for the president in global trade. For investors, the takeaway is clear: the era of unilateral executive decree in trade is facing its most significant judicial headwind in decades. The next 150 days will be a critical testing ground for whether the administration can successfully migrate its trade agenda to more restrictive legal authorities without triggering a broader economic slowdown or further constitutional crises.