ISTANBUL

Although the US Supreme Court has struck down President Donald Trump’s controversial tariffs, several alternative legal mechanisms remain available that could allow similar trade duties to be reintroduced, US outlets reported.

The court ruled 6-3 on Friday that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs, holding that the Constitution grants Congress – not the president – the power to levy tariffs.

In the decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said the framers assigned tariff authority “to Congress alone,” despite the foreign policy implications of trade measures. Though the challenge to the tariffs had broad appeal to the bench, including both liberal and conservative justices, far-right Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Last year, after returning to the White House for a second term, Trump declared a “national emergency” on what he called “Liberation Day,” arguing that foreign countries were exploiting the US in global trade and citing the IEEPA as the legal basis for broad-based import duties.

While the ruling blocks the use of IEEPA for such tariffs, conservative-friendly Fox News reported that other statutes passed by Congress could provide alternative avenues.

One option is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which authorizes tariffs on imports deemed to threaten national security following a Commerce Department investigation. The provision was used in 2018 to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and has been upheld in court. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has expanded the list of covered items by adding hundreds of derivative products linked to those metals.

Another pathway is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits the US trade representative to investigate unfair trade practices and impose retaliatory tariffs. Tariffs imposed on Chinese goods under that authority have survived legal challenges, including a federal appeals court ruling last September rejecting claims brought by thousands of companies.

Section 122 of the same 1974 law – known as the “balance of payments” provision – allows the president to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address certain trade imbalances or unjustifiable restrictions on US commerce. The report noted that the provision has been less extensively tested in court.

In addition, the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act remains in effect, providing mechanisms to respond to dumping or foreign subsidies on a product-by-product basis.

According to the report, while the Supreme Court’s decision limits the use of emergency economic powers to impose sweeping tariffs, it does not eliminate other congressionally authorized routes that could enable the administration to pursue trade restrictions under different statutory frameworks.

While other legal routes may exist for applying tariffs, surveys show the levies remain broadly unpopular with the US public, who believe tariffs push up prices, despite Trump’s claim that foreign countries pay the tariffs, not US consumers.

Insistence by Trump on applying tariffs, whether legally allowable or not, could endanger Republican majorities in the US congressional elections this November, which polls show Democrats are already favored to win.