Vice President JD Vance has voiced strong disapproval of the Supreme Court following its 6-3 decision to overturn global tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), labeling the ruling as “lawlessness.”
In a post on X, Vance pointed out that the “only effect” from the Supreme Court’s ruling would be “to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency.”
“Today, the Supreme Court concluded that Congress, despite granting the president authority to ‘regulate imports,’ didn’t truly intend it,” Vance stated. “This is a blatant act of lawlessness by the Court.”
Vance further emphasized that Trump retains a variety of other tariff powers and intends to utilize them to safeguard American workers and advance the administration’s trade objectives.
According to News’s John Carney, this Supreme Court decision marks “the first time the high court has definitively invalidated one of Trump’s second-term policies.”
The majority opinion was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. In contrast, Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented.
News White House Correspondent Nick Gilbertson noted that Justice Kavanaugh suggested there might still be a “path forward for future tariffs.”
Trump declared overdose deaths from fentanyl and persistent annual trade deficits to be national emergencies that justified the new trade policy under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law Congress passed to give presidents tools for responding to foreign crises.
While Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elene Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson formed the majority in the ruling, Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented.
– News White House Correspondent Nick Gilbertson reported that Justice Kavanaugh hinted that there may be a “path forward for future tariffs”:
Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require. Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338). In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.
During a White House press briefing after the ruling, Trump announced that he would be signing “an order to impose a ten percent global tariff under Section 122” of the Trade Act of 1974.
“Effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place — fully in place, and in full force and effect,” Trump said. “Today, I will sign an order to impose a ten percent global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged. And, we’re also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.”
