Context:

The Supreme Court overturned President Trump’s emergency tariffs, ruling he lacked authority under the 1977 IEEPA, prompting Trump to say he would replace them with a 10% temporary tariff. The decision clarifies limits on the executive power to impose tariffs via emergency statutes, while leaving room for other congressional-authorized routes. The administration points to alternatives under existing laws, arguing a more complex process is still viable to address unfair trade practices. The plan signals potential broader use of tariff tools, with investigations potentially triggering additional measures, though each would be time-limited and subject to procedural constraints. The timeframe centers on the immediate post-ruling period and ensuing weeks of policy maneuvering and legal interpretation.

Dive Deeper:

• On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the president lacks congressional authority to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, overturning the emergency tariffs.

• The ruling was a 6-3 decision, with two of Trump’s appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, joining the majority.

• Trump said he would immediately impose a 10% temporary tariff to replace the overturned emergency tariffs, framing it as a continuation of tariff policy through a different mechanism.

• Officials explained that, beyond the emergency statute, tariffs can be pursued via tools in the 1962 Trade Expansion Act or the 1974 Trade Act, which involve investigations and a more involved process.

• The 10% tariff is described as lasting about 150 days, with USTR indicating investigations into unfair trade practices could lead to further measures in the following weeks.

• U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated that existing tools would be deployed and that more developments would emerge in the near term.