• Trump called the Supreme Court ruling "deeply disappointing" and said he is "absolutely ashamed" of justices who voted against his tariffs, including two he appointed
• The president announced an immediate 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which caps duties at 15% and limits them to 150 days
• Trade experts warn the alternative statutes require investigations, rate caps and time limits that make replicating IEEPA's sweeping authority nearly impossible

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — Hours after the Supreme Court struck down his emergency tariffs, President Donald Trump stood in the White House briefing room Friday afternoon and announced what he called a backup plan — an executive order imposing a 10% global tariff under a different law. But trade policy experts are already flagging a problem the president did not mention: the alternative statutes he is turning to carry legal restrictions that IEEPA never did, and none of them can replicate the sweeping, unlimited authority the Supreme Court tariff ruling just eliminated.

Trump's visible fury over the 6-3 decision was on full display. He called it "deeply disappointing" and attacked the justices who ruled against him — including Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom he appointed.

"I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what's right for our country."— President Donald Trump

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

He then praised the three dissenters by name — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh — calling Kavanaugh's dissent "genius" and saying his "stock has gone so up."

"They're against anything that makes America strong, healthy and great again. They also are a frankly disgrace to our nation, those justices. They're an automatic no."— President Donald Trump, referring to the majority justices

The Backup Plan: What Trump Announced

Trump announced three specific actions during the press conference:

First, he signed an executive order imposing a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Second, he said all existing national security tariffs under Section 232 and Section 301 remain "in full force and effect." Third, he announced new Section 301 investigations to "protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Trump also made an unusual claim about the ruling's impact, asserting that it paradoxically strengthened presidential tariff authority.

"In actuality, while I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court's decision today made a president's ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear, rather than less."— President Donald Trump

Legal experts and trade attorneys have not echoed that interpretation.

What the Alternative Statutes Actually Allow

Here is where the gap between Trump's rhetoric and legal reality becomes significant. Each alternative statute carries restrictions that IEEPA did not impose:

Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974): Allows the president to impose a temporary import surcharge of up to 15% to address "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits. The critical limitations — it caps tariffs at 15% and restricts them to 150 days. By contrast, IEEPA tariffs had no rate cap and no time limit. Trump used IEEPA to impose rates as high as 145% on Chinese goods. Section 122 has never been used to apply tariffs and there remains legal uncertainty about how it would work in practice.

Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974): Allows tariffs in response to unfair trade practices. No cap on rates, and tariffs can last four years with extensions. However, the U.S. Trade Representative must conduct an investigation and typically hold public hearings before imposing duties. Section 301 investigations focus on one country at a time, meaning replicating IEEPA's global reach would require dozens of parallel investigations — what one trade attorney called "a laborious process."

Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962): Allows tariffs on national security grounds with no rate cap. But the Commerce Department must first conduct an investigation, reporting conclusions to the president within 270 days. Section 232 is designed for individual sectors — steel, aluminum, copper — not blanket tariffs on entire countries.

Section 338 (Tariff Act of 1930): Allows tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reportedly signaled last year that the administration was considering Section 338 as a Plan B. The provision has never actually been used — historically it served as a bargaining chip, not an enforcement mechanism.

The Revenue Problem

The financial stakes are enormous. IEEPA tariffs generated approximately $130 billion in revenue from over 301,000 importers as of December, representing more than half of all tariff revenue the government was collecting monthly. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model estimates potential refunds could reach $175 billion.

The Tax Foundation estimated that Section 122 — Trump's immediate fallback — could replace only 56-73% of IEEPA revenue depending on the rate chosen. And that authority expires after 150 days, creating a ticking clock.

Major companies are already moving to recover what they've paid. Costco, DHL and over 100 other importers have filed claims or lawsuits seeking refunds. The court's majority said nothing about how refunds should work, leaving lower courts to sort out what Kavanaugh predicted would be "a mess."

"The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others."— Justice Brett Kavanaugh, dissenting opinion

The Deeper Constitutional Question

What neither party is discussing openly is the core tension the ruling exposed. For decades, Congress has steadily delegated trade authority to the executive branch through vaguely worded statutes, and presidents of both parties have exploited that ambiguity.

Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurrence was arguably the most consequential passage in the entire ruling — and it was directed not at Trump, but at Congress.

"Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design."— Justice Neil Gorsuch, concurring opinion

Whether Congress takes that invitation seriously — reclaiming trade authority rather than outsourcing it to whoever sits in the Oval Office — will determine whether Friday's ruling is a constitutional landmark or a speed bump.

Trump's backup plan may keep some tariffs alive in the short term, but the deeper question the ruling raised isn't about which statute the president invokes — it's whether a nation that constitutionally assigned taxing power to Congress will ever insist that Congress actually use it.

Sources

This report was compiled using information from CBS News' live coverage of Trump's press conference, NPR's reporting on the Supreme Court ruling, CNN's live updates on Trump's reaction and announcements, NBC News' live updates on the ruling and press conference, CNBC's analysis of the ruling and refund implications, Axios' coverage of Trump's response, Bloomberg Law's analysis of alternative tariff statutes, NPR's explainer on tariff economics and alternative authorities, US News' reporting on presidential tariff options, Fortune's reporting on administration contingency planning, and CBS News' coverage of business reactions.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10