Supreme Court says little about redress for Trump tariff damages

TheUS Supreme Courton Friday ruled that PresidentDonald Trumpexceeded his authority when he invoked an emergency law to impose sweeping globaltariffs, sparking a tradewar and burdening American consumers and businesses with higher costs.

The 6-3decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that “nothing” in the text of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) “enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs.”

“And needless to say,” Roberts wrote, “without statutory authority, the president’s tariffs cannot stand.” JusticesClarence Thomas,Brett Kavanaugh, andSamuel Alitodissented in the case,Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.

The ruling deals a massive blow to Trump’s tariff regime, which he placed at the center of his economic policy agenda despite warnings that the sweeping import taxes would drive up costs for US consumers and businesses – which isprecisely what happened.

Ananalysisreleased by congressional Democrats just after theSupreme Courthanded down its ruling estimated that the average US family has paid more than $1,700 in tariff costs since the start of Trump’s secondWhite Houseterm.

While businessesmay be eligible for tariff refundsin the wake of the high court’s decision, it’sfar from clearthat consumers who paid higher costs for groceries and other goods affected by the levies will have any such recourse. As Associate Justice Brett Kavanagh made a point of noting (->) in his dissent, the Supreme Court’s decision does not directly address the issue of refunds for tariff costs – which tripledfor midsize US companies last year.

“Any consumer looking for relief from tariff-driven price hikes did not find it at the Supreme Court today,” said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at theGroundwork Collaborative. “The economic damage Trump has already done to business investment, manufacturing, and working families’ budgets will linger for years to come.”

“Refunds for impacted businesses will take months or even years to process, and there is little reason to believe companies will pass those savings on to consumers,” Jacquez added. “Trump must set aside his erratic tariff policy and instead pursue a trade agenda that protectsworkers, supports manufacturers, and doesn’t punish consumers.”

“Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage.”

Most of the tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term will be impacted by the Supreme Court’s decision.NBC Newsnotedthat the decision “upends his tariffs in two categories. One is country-by-country or ‘reciprocal’ tariffs, which range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world.”

“The other is a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China, and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl,” the outlet added.

On top of driving up costs for American consumers and businesses, Trump’s tariffs failed to make a dent in the US trade deficit and did not stop the loss of manufacturing jobs, which declined by anestimated 108,000during the president’s first year back in the White House.

Fearing a negative Supreme Court ruling,Trump administrationofficials havebeen exploring alternatives to the IEEPA, prompting concerns that the president could swiftly pursue similar tariffs under a different authority. [Update: He announced Friday afternoon that he would continue with a tariffs regime.]

“This decision is unlikely to alter US tariff rates or policies much because there are other statutes that could provide broad authority for Trump to impose tariffs,” said Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project.

“In the immediate term, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 explicitly authorizes a president to impose tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to ‘large and serious’ balance of payments issues, which relates to the huge chronic US trade deficit,” Wallach observed. “Section 122 does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits.”

US Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the HouseBudgetCommittee, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision but warned that “Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage.”

This article originally published by Common Dreams is republished under a Creative Commons license.