On June 15, the Supreme Court declined to review a ruling that upheld President Donald Trump’s 2018 China tariffs under the 1974 Trade Act, leaving in place import fees critics say are costing American consumers nearly $75 billion a year. The decision may give
For businesses that tried to stop President Donald Trump’s China tariffs, June 15 was a closed door.
The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge brought by companies contesting tariffs imposed in 2018 under a different authority than the emergency duties the justices struck down in February. The court’s refusal to review a ruling upholding those tariffs could give the administration momentum as it looks for ways to replace many of the emergency tariffs Trump attempted to impose last year.
It also leaves in place import fees that companies challenging the tariffs say are costing American consumers nearly $75 billion a year.
The dispute centers on the legal power behind the duties. Some of the 2018 tariffs were imposed on imports from China using the 1974 Trade Act, a law that allows the U.S. to take action against another country’s unfair trade practices.
After the Supreme Court’s February decision eliminated Trump’s emergency tariff approach. attention turned to whether the administration could take a similar step through the Trade Act instead. In June, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office proposed tariffs of up to 12.5% on imports from 60 countries it says haven’t done enough to crack down on forced labor.
The stakes are financial and immediate. If those proposals were implemented alongside recent changes to steel and aluminum tariffs. the amount of money collected could replace roughly half the projected revenue loss from the Supreme Court’s ruling against Trump’s other tariffs. according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The administration’s legal approach is not the same as the emergency route the Supreme Court rejected. Using the Trade Act involves a more complicated process, with fact findings and hearings on another country’s trade practices. But lawyers for companies challenging the 2018 tariffs argued that the structure still makes it too easy to ratchet up duties dramatically.
HMTX Industries and other flooring and electronics businesses said that’s exactly what happened. They described a sequence in which China retaliated after an initial round of tariffs on $50 billion in imports. That retaliation. according to the companies. helped prompt the first Trump administration to impose additional duties on $320 billion worth of imports.
In their filings, the companies also pointed to what they saw as a limit Congress actually set—or failed to set. They argued that the administration used authority under the Trade Act to modify existing tariffs.
“But Congress nowhere gave (the U.S. Trade Representative) the vast power to engage in an open-ended trade war under that modest modification provision,” lawyers for the businesses said in their appeal.
They urged the court to decide whether there are limits on how far the administration can expand tariffs under the Trade Act. Their position was that it was “all but inevitable” the government would use the “loophole” again.
The administration took a different view. It countered that the law does not restrict its ability to respond to developments. as long as any new tariffs are not “radically transformative.” In other words. the government argued it can move in response to changing circumstances without running afoul of the authority Congress gave.
And in a filing, the Justice Department added that if Trump did use the Trade Act again to impose—and then increase—tariffs, the court “will have ample opportunity to address the scope of those provisions.”
The chain of events matters because tariff fights are never just about numbers on paper. The companies say the costs ultimately show up with consumers, and they’ve put a figure on what they believe that burden looks like: nearly $75 billion a year in import fees.
Put alongside the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene on June 15, the result is a more open runway for the administration to test new tariff moves under a legal framework the justices have now left intact.
Supreme Court tariff challenge Trump tariffs China tariffs 1974 Trade Act import fees forced labor tariffs steel and aluminum tariffs Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget HMTX Industries