Trump tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court: Fallback options that could keep them alive | Explained

United States President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media aboard Air Force One while flying from Palm Beach International Airport on February 16, 2026 en route to Washington, DC.

After the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs imposed under emergency economic powers, the Trump administration is expected to explore alternative legal routes to keep its trade strategy largely intact.

Officials have previously signalled that the administration was prepared for an adverse ruling. In September last year, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Washington had multiple fallback options if the courts curtailed the use of emergency powers to impose tariffs.

Turning to existing trade laws

One option available to the administration is to rely on long-standing trade statutes that give the president authority to impose tariffs after formal investigations.

These include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the US to impose duties in response to unfair trade practices by foreign countries, and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which permits tariffs on national security grounds.

These laws have already been used by Trump in the past to impose tariffs on steel, aluminium and a range of Chinese imports. Unlike emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, these provisions require investigations and procedural steps, but they remain firmly within the president’s legal authority.

Sector-specific tariffs still in play

The Supreme Court ruling does not affect sector-specific tariffs that Trump has imposed separately on products such as steel, aluminium and other goods.

Several formal probes remain underway, and these investigations could lead to additional tariffs on specific industries. Administration officials have indicated that these sector-based duties could be expanded if needed, offering a narrower but legally stronger path to maintaining trade pressure.

Renegotiating and rebranding tariffs

Another possible route is to redesign tariffs through negotiated trade actions or targeted measures tied to specific countries or products, rather than broad, across-the-board levies.

By narrowing the scope of tariffs and tying them to clearly defined trade violations, the administration could seek to achieve similar economic and political objectives while reducing legal risk.

Congressional backing as a longer-term option

The administration could also attempt to secure explicit congressional authorisation for new tariff powers, though this would be politically challenging and time-consuming.

The Supreme Court made clear that tariffs of broad scope require clear approval from Congress. While unlikely in the short term, legislative backing would offer the strongest legal foundation for future trade actions.

Administration insists options remain

Addressing concerns last year, Bessent had said the administration was confident it could respond if the courts ruled against the use of emergency powers.

“We have other tools available,” he said, insisting that the US would not be left without options to defend its trade interests.

While the Supreme Court ruling has closed off one of the most aggressive tools Trump has used to shape trade policy, it has not stripped the administration of its broader authority to impose tariffs through more traditional and legally established channels.