US Bilateral Trade Deals Stand Despite Supreme Court Tariff Ruling, Greer Says

The recent Supreme Court ruling against the Trump administration’s tariff-setting authority represents a significant judicial check on executive power, yet its immediate impact on international commerce may be more contained than initially feared. At the heart of the dispute is the administration's use of broad national security justifications to bypass Congressional oversight in the implementation of trade barriers. While the Court’s decision effectively narrows the President's ability to act unilaterally, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has moved quickly to establish a legal firewall around the administration's bilateral successes. By distinguishing between unilateral executive mandates and negotiated bilateral agreements, Greer is signaling to the global community that the 'America First' trade architecture remains structurally intact.

This distinction is critical for market stability. Unilateral tariffs, often imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, have been the primary tool for the administration’s protectionist agenda. These are the measures most vulnerable to the Court’s ruling, as they rely heavily on executive interpretation of security threats. In contrast, bilateral deals—such as those recently finalized or updated with key partners—are viewed by the USTR as reciprocal treaties or executive agreements that carry a different legal weight. Because these deals involve mutual concessions and formal negotiations, the administration argues they do not fall under the same constitutional scrutiny as the broad-brush tariffs that triggered the legal challenge.

“

While the Court’s decision effectively narrows the President's ability to act unilaterally, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has moved quickly to establish a legal firewall around the administration's bilateral successes.

For multinational corporations and supply chain managers, Greer’s assurance provides a necessary, if cautious, reprieve. The primary risk following the SCOTUS ruling was a 'trade vacuum' where existing tariffs might be invalidated overnight, leading to a flood of imports and the collapse of domestic price protections. By affirming the validity of bilateral deals, the USTR is maintaining a degree of predictability for businesses that have already pivoted their operations to align with these specific trade corridors. However, the ruling does suggest that the era of 'tariff-by-tweet' or rapid-fire executive orders may be coming to an end, forcing the administration to rely more heavily on the slower, more traditional path of formal bilateral negotiations.

From a geopolitical perspective, the ruling may actually provide the USTR with a new form of leverage. Trading partners who were previously subject to unilateral threats may now be more inclined to enter formal bilateral talks to secure their own 'carve-outs' from the legal uncertainty surrounding broader US trade policy. We should expect a flurry of diplomatic activity as the administration seeks to codify its existing tariff structures into formal bilateral frameworks that can withstand further judicial review. The focus will likely shift toward sectors like automotive manufacturing, steel, and technology, where the administration has been most aggressive.

Looking forward, the legal battle is far from over. Constitutional scholars and trade lawyers will likely scrutinize Greer’s interpretation of the ruling, potentially launching follow-up challenges against specific bilateral provisions that mirror the invalidated unilateral tariffs. Investors should watch for any legislative response from Congress, which may seek to either reclaim its constitutional authority over commerce or, conversely, provide the administration with a new statutory framework that satisfies the Supreme Court's requirements. For now, the USTR’s stance has successfully prevented a total market rout, but the long-term flexibility of US trade policy has undoubtedly been constrained.