I spent months warning that a Supreme Court ruling against President Trump in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump would devastate the country. I was wrong. Not because the Court’s decision was wise, I think it was misguided on the law and unhelpful on the policy, but because I misunderstood what the decision actually took away. It did not strip the presidency of tariff leverage. It stripped the presidency of one particular shortcut, the ability to impose tariffs immediately through IEEPA’s emergency framework. That matters, but it is not the same thing as disarmament.
Start with what the Court did, and did not, say. The majority held that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, insisting that if a president seeks “the extraordinary power” to impose broad tariffs, he must point to clear congressional authorization, and the majority thought IEEPA’s language was not clear enough. It emphasized that IEEPA contains no express reference to “tariffs” or “duties,” and it treated tariffs as a kind of taxation that Congress does not typically authorize by using the word “regulate.” That is the holding. But it is also the limit of the holding. The Court did not declare tariffs generally suspect. It did not repudiate the modern trade statutes. It did not deny that Congress has repeatedly authorized presidents to impose tariffs. It said only that IEEPA is not one of those authorizations.
Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, which President Trump highlighted immediately after the ruling, is the key to seeing why the practical impact is procedural more than substantive. Kavanaugh begins with a point that is both legally correct and civically important: “Those policy debates are not for the Federal Judiciary to resolve.” Courts interpret statutes, they do not run industrial policy. He then states the dissent’s core claim in plain language: “Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.” That is not rhetoric. It is the basic structure of American trade law. If you can restrict imports by banning them or capping them, you can restrict imports by charging for them. All are methods of regulating the flow of goods across the border.
Kavanaugh’s deeper point, and the one that matters even if you accept the majority’s reading, is that presidential tariff power does not rise or fall with IEEPA. It rests on a wide latticework of trade statutes that Congress has enacted over decades. Kavanaugh stresses that “numerous laws, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, continue to authorize the president to place tariffs on foreign imports in a variety of circumstances.” He adds a political fact that the press too often obscures: this is not some exotic Trump invention. Presidents George W. Bush, Obama, and Biden all imposed tariffs under these statutory authorities. Whatever you think of those tariffs, they were not treated as constitutional heresy. They were treated as policy.
Near the end of his dissent, Kavanaugh makes the point that President Trump seized on at his press conference: the Court’s decision is “not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward.” Read that sentence slowly. A Supreme Court Justice, dissenting on the statutory question, still tells you that the practical constraint on presidential tariff leverage is modest. The reason is simple. IEEPA was never the only lever. It was the fastest lever.
That is the right framework. Before the decision, the playbook could be summarized like this: declare an emergency, invoke IEEPA, impose a tariff immediately. After the decision, the playbook changes to this: invoke a specific trade statute, follow its process, impose a tariff. The shift is real, but it is mostly about timing and procedural steps. It is about whether you can flip a tariff on overnight, not whether you can flip it on at all.
President Trump’s immediate response made that reality impossible to miss. Instead of retreating, he doubled down. He pointed to Kavanaugh’s dissent to underline that federal law still gives the president wide tariff power, and then he announced a more serious tariff regime in direct response to the Court’s decision. Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs remain in place and in force, and under Section 122, he is implementing a global 10% tariff. The message to Democrats and to foreign capitals was obvious: you can close one statutory door, but you cannot close the building.
If you are wondering how that can be true, it helps to separate two different kinds of tools that get lumped together in cable news chatter. Some tools are sanctions tools; they target money and transactions. Some tools are trade remedies; they target goods and supply chains. IEEPA, even after this decision, remains a sanctions superpower statute. The president can still block foreign assets, restrict financial transactions, and choke off access to the U.S. financial system. And, most strikingly, given the Court’s reasoning, the president can still ban imports entirely through embargo-like restrictions. Legal analysts have long noted that embargo authority is the heavier club. A tariff is a price. An embargo is a wall. In practice, a near-total import ban can be more coercive than a tariff, because it does not merely make a product expensive; it makes the product unavailable.
That is why President Trump’s point about the “insanity” of the statutory scheme lands with force. If Congress trusted presidents, under IEEPA, with the authority to halt whole categories of trade and freeze assets, it is strange to insist that Congress could not also have trusted them with the lesser power to impose a tariff. Kavanaugh makes the same structural point in legal form when he pairs tariffs with “quotas and embargoes” as standard tools of regulating importation. The Court has now drawn a line that says, in effect, you can do the most severe thing, stop trade, but you cannot do the intermediate thing, price trade, under this particular statute. That line may be the law after Learning Resources, but it is not obviously a sensible design.
Now shift from sanctions tools to trade statutes, because this is where the practical leverage lies. The president’s remaining tariff authorities are not hypothetical. They are text on the books, and they have been used repeatedly. The most important substitute, in most analysts’ view, is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 allows tariffs or quotas when imports threaten to impair national security, after a Commerce Department investigation and a national security determination. This is not a fragile theory. The Supreme Court already upheld Section 232 action in Algonquin, and Kavanaugh’s dissent leans heavily on that precedent, stressing that the power to “adjust imports” was understood to include monetary exactions such as tariffs and fees. That matters because it reinforces a basic point that critics sometimes deny: tariffs can be a method of regulating commerce, not merely a method of collecting revenue.
Section 232 also has an advantage that is easy to overlook. It is politically legible. Voters understand national security. They understand supply chain dependence. They understand why steel, aluminum, autos, semiconductors, rare earths, and pharmaceuticals are not just “goods,” but strategic inputs. When you tie a tariff to national security, you frame it as defense, not merely bargaining. The limitation, of course, is that the president must tie the action to national security, not to general trade leverage, and the statute requires procedural steps. But those steps are not prohibitive. They are a timetable, not a veto.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is the other pillar. It allows tariffs in response to unfair trade practices, intellectual property violations, or discriminatory foreign policies, after a USTR investigation and findings. This is explicitly designed as negotiation leverage. It was used heavily against China beginning in 2018 and has remained central to U.S. trade strategy since. The limitation is that you must identify a specific unfair practice and run the investigation. But if the goal is leverage toward “fair trade deals,” that is not a bug. It forces the argument into a factual channel. It produces a record. It turns a bargaining threat into a documented legal case.
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the provision President Trump invoked for a global 10% tariff, is the short-term bridge. It authorizes a temporary across-the-board import surcharge, up to 15%, for up to 150 days, to address large and serious balance-of-payments deficits. Experts mention it for a reason: it is broad, it resembles Nixon’s 1971 approach, and it allows emergency-style tariff leverage while negotiations proceed. Its limitation is also clear. It is time-limited, capped, and must be tied to balance-of-payments issues. But those constraints are not fatal if you use Section 122 the way it is meant to be used, as a short, sharp demonstration that buys time for longer processes to run.
Section 201, the safeguard provision in the Trade Act of 1974, is more defensive than coercive. It allows temporary tariffs when imports cause serious injury to a domestic industry, but it requires an ITC injury finding, and it is time-limited and industry-specific. It will not replace IEEPA as a broad leverage tool. It will, however, remain useful when the argument is not “foreign nation X is cheating,” but “import surges are crushing a domestic sector faster than it can adjust.”
Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is the sleeper. It authorizes retaliatory tariffs up to 50% against countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce. It is rarely used, almost dormant, which is precisely why it is interesting. It sits there like an unloaded firearm on the mantelpiece. In a world where many nations openly discriminate against U.S. products through regulatory barriers, digital taxes, procurement favoritism, and informal restrictions, a statute aimed at discrimination could be revived. The limitation is that it requires a finding of discrimination, and it has been historically dormant, meaning it would likely attract immediate litigation and political scrutiny. But as a leverage threat, even a rarely used statute can matter, because bargaining is often about credible options, not just about frequently exercised ones.
At this point, a reasonable reader may ask: if all these authorities exist, why did IEEPA matter at all? The answer is speed. IEEPA allowed near-instant action after a presidential emergency declaration. Traditional trade statutes require investigations, formal findings, public comment periods, agency reports, and waiting periods. In practice, Section 232 can take roughly 4–9 months, and Section 301 can take roughly 6–12 months. That means tariffs cannot be flipped on overnight. That reduces shock value. It also reduces the president’s ability to use instantaneous pressure as a negotiating tactic.
But slower does not mean weaker. In some ways, slower is more sustainable. A tariff regime built on Section 232 or Section 301 is harder to dismiss as improvisation. It is anchored in a statutory record. It is easier to defend in court. It is also easier to defend diplomatically because it is framed as the execution of U.S. law, not the whims of a declared emergency. The main shift is not that the president lost leverage. The main shift is that leverage must be scheduled, documented, and routed through the agencies. It is like losing the ability to teleport and being forced to take the highway. You arrive later, but you still arrive.
There is another practical effect of the decision that Kavanaugh flags, and it matters politically as much as legally: refunds. Kavanaugh warns that the decision could trigger “other serious practical consequences,” and he focuses on one in particular. “One issue will be refunds,” he writes, noting that “refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury,” and stressing that the Court “says nothing” about whether, and how, the government should return what it collected. He quotes oral argument to describe the likely aftermath as a “mess.” That matters because it tells you something the headlines did not. The Supreme Court did not order the Treasury to cut checks. It resolved a statutory authority question and left the remedial battlefield untouched.
That omission opens space for a strong steelman argument that the U.S. will not be required to repay the roughly $200B in tariffs collected. The first point is procedural and blunt: there is no automatic repayment mechanism in the Court’s opinion. Parties who paid tariffs would have to sue to collect them. Many will not. Litigation is expensive. Litigation is slow. Litigation is uncertain. Some firms will conclude that the net recovery, after attorneys’ fees, time, and commercial disruption, is not worth it. Others will face procedural barriers, including strict rules about how and when to protest customs duties, and about exhausting administrative remedies before going to court.
The second point is political and moral, and Democrats themselves supplied it. For years, Democrats and the mainstream media repeated a simple talking point: tariffs are paid by American consumers. If that claim is even partly true, then a mass refund regime is perverse. It would send money, not to the families who allegedly bore the cost, but to the importers of record, many of whom passed the cost through in pricing. In other words, the people who were told they “paid the tariffs” would be asked to pay again, through federal refunds financed by general revenues, while the legal recovery would accrue to corporate entities. You do not need to be a trade economist to see why the public would find that unfair. The more loudly Democrats insisted that consumers bore the cost, the less credible it becomes to demand that taxpayers fund refunds to importers.
The third point is practical governance. Even in a world where many lawsuits are filed, the timeline is long. The Court did not build a refund pipeline. It did not opine on the remedial details. That means the next phase runs through lower courts, procedural motions, jurisdictional fights, and appeals. Worst case, the litigation takes two years or more, and during that time, the tariff regime can be reconstituted under other statutes. By the time the dust settles, the policy landscape may be entirely different, and Congress may have acted to clarify rules for prospective trade measures and past collections. That is not a dodge; it is how the American separation of powers works. Courts decide legal questions, then the rest of the system fights over implementation.
Finally, there is the strategic point, which President Trump’s response already illustrates. Even if the Court removed the IEEPA shortcut, it did not remove the president’s ability to bargain. Tariffs are leverage because they change expectations. When foreign governments believe the U.S. can and will impose costs, they negotiate differently. That belief does not depend on one statute. It depends on the full menu of lawful options, including Section 232, Section 301, Section 122, Section 201, Section 338, and the continuing non-tariff powers under IEEPA to sanction, block, and embargo. If anything, by forcing tariffs through traditional trade statutes, the Court may have nudged the system toward measures that are slower but more durable, less vulnerable to being painted as arbitrary, and therefore more credible over time.
So yes, I still think the Court’s reading of IEEPA is wrong, and Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent makes the best case for why. He shows that tariffs have always been understood as a method of regulating importation, and he reminds us that courts are not supposed to launder policy preferences into statutory interpretation. But the bigger lesson, and the one I missed when I sounded the alarm, is that presidential leverage does not hinge on a single lever. The Court removed one shortcut. It did not remove presidential tariff leverage.
That is why the world should not misread Learning Resources as a defeat for Trump’s trade strategy. It is a rerouting, not a retreat. It means the president must run the process, build the record, and then impose the tariff. It means the shock of overnight action is reduced. But it also means the resulting tariffs, once imposed, can rest on a firmer legal foundation. And as Trump’s own response made plain, the practical question is not whether the U.S. can use tariffs as leverage. The practical question is how aggressively the president is willing to use the tools that Congress has already put in his hands. On that front, the Court’s decision seems to have done the opposite of what its defenders hoped. It provoked a more serious tariff regime, not a surrender.
If you enjoy my work, please subscribe: https://x.com/amuse.
Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.
READ NEXT: Washington Reverses Controversial Policy Impacting Veterans’ Gun Rights
Separation of Powers. SCOTUS can not act as if they are the Executive Branch just as Chief Justice told Congress they are exempt from Congress imposing rules to govern the Supreme Court the President can simply pocket the decision and refuse to enact their non-sense. SCOTUS has nothing to do with international relations and commerce. SCOTUS makes rulings they have no power to enforce that is up to the Executive Branch and Congress as long as it is constitutional can enact laws to set SCOTUS back on its heels. Fie. Terrible decision by SCOTUS see why the Chief Justice should rotate among the Justices of the majority. No more Lifetime appointments term limits for Justices and mandatory retirement. A Constitutional Convention of the STATES can change the constitution as to Justices on SCOTUS perhaps the time has come!