Supreme Court justices on Wednesday raised doubts about the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs in a case that could have major repercussions for the global economy and represents a key test of presidential authority.
Justices from both conservative and liberal wings questioned the administration’s attorney on whether Trump had overstepped congressional powers by imposing tariffs under a 1977 law intended for use during national emergencies.
However, several conservative justices also added that the president’s traditional authority in matters of foreign policy suggests that the Court may be deeply divided in its eventual ruling.
If the US Supreme Court rules that Trump’s tariffs are illegal, it could have significant implications for both the economy and international trade relations.
However, experts agree that even if the court rules against the president’s current tariff powers, he will still have plenty of legal avenues to impose similar tariffs. Here is a closer look at what could happen if the court declares Trump’s tariffs unconstitutional.
Trump still has other tariff powers
Even if the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs imposed by Trump under emergency powers, there are other legal mechanisms the president can use to continue his trade policies.
“It’s hard to see any pathway here where tariffs end. I am pretty convinced he could rebuild the tariff landscape he has now using other authorities,” Georgetown trade law professor Kathleen Claussen told AP.
Trump has used various legal tools in the past, including provisions from the 1970s and 1960s, to impose tariffs. One of these options is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which gives the president the power to impose tariffs on countries that engage in “unjustifiable”, “unreasonable”, or “discriminatory” trade practices.
In his first term, Trump made aggressive use of Section 301 to impose tariffs on Chinese imports, and there are no limits on how large these tariffs can be.
As Ryan Majerus, a former trade official in the Trump administration, explained to AP, “You’ve had Section 301 tariffs in place against China for years.”
Refunds for companies
If the Supreme Court rules that Trump’s tariffs are unconstitutional, companies that paid those tariffs may be entitled to refunds.
Robert Shapiro, a partner at Thompson Coburn LLC specialising in international trade, told Forbes, “If the tariffs are overturned and determined to be unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, then I think that the money has to be refunded, because the government didn’t have a right to collect it.”
However, the process of issuing refunds could be complicated. Trade attorney Patrick Childress added that businesses could either receive refunds directly, or the government may set up a process for companies to apply for them. But, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent noted, “We would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury.”
If Trump’s tariffs are overturned, consumers might benefit from lower prices on goods that were impacted by the tariffs. According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, Trump’s tariffs were expected to cost American households $1,304 per year in 2025. However, if the tariffs are struck down, that cost would drop to just $292 in 2025 and $387 in 2026.
“If the tariffs are overturned, that increase goes down to $292 in 2025 and $387 in 2026,” the Tax Foundation found. This means that Americans could pay less for everyday goods, which would be a relief for many families.
Legal options for consumers
Consumers who have already paid higher prices due to the tariffs may also have legal options to recover some of that money. Shapiro stated that, in cases where businesses raised prices because of the tariffs, companies could be required to refund the extra amounts to customers.
“I think that some of those announcements that companies made about the tariffs certainly would give customers at least a colorable argument for recovering part of those additional costs,” Shapiro told Forbes
This could lead to lawsuits, where consumers argue that, since the tariffs were found unlawful, companies should return the extra money paid. Although it is unclear how these cases will play out, trade experts believe there is a possibility of legal action from consumers.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court’s ruling would not impact all of Trump’s tariffs. The case currently before the court concerns the “Liberation Day” tariffs, or “reciprocal tariffs,” which apply to nearly all goods from most countries.
These tariffs were imposed by Trump in response to trade imbalances, and were based on national security concerns. However, the case would not affect tariffs Trump imposed on specific goods or industries, such as steel and aluminum, or tariffs related to auto imports.
Other powers Trump could use
Even if the court strikes down Trump’s emergency powers, the president has other legal options to impose tariffs. One option is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to impose tariffs on imports that he deems a threat to national security.
Trump has already used Section 232 to impose tariffs on steel, aluminum, and autos, and he could extend these powers to other industries.
Another option is Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which gives the president the authority to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that have discriminated against US businesses.
This law has never been used, but it is still on the books, and Trump might consider using it if his current tariffs are struck down. “To be the first president to ever use it could have some cache,” said trade expert Veroneau to AP.
Smoot-Hawley tariffs
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is another potential tool in Trump’s trade arsenal. This law, which imposed high tariffs during the Great Depression, allows the president to impose tariffs without conducting an investigation.
While the law has a controversial history and is widely criticised for worsening the Great Depression, Trump might see it as a way to take more aggressive action on trade. Veroneau explained to AP. “The Smoot-Hawley legislation has a bad reputation, but Trump might find it appealing.”