President Donald Trump said Friday he would keep sweeping tariffs in place by invoking alternative legal authorities, hours after the US Supreme Court ruled that he exceeded his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in imposing the trade measures.
Speaking during an afternoon press conference at the White House briefing room, Trump sharply criticized the majority opinion and the six justices who concluded that IEEPA does not grant the president authority to unilaterally levy broad-based tariffs.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I’m ashamed of certain members of the Court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump said.
The decision marked a significant rebuke of Trump’s expansive use of emergency powers to reshape US trade policy. The majority found that while IEEPA authorizes the president to regulate certain financial transactions during national emergencies, it does not explicitly empower the executive branch to impose across-the-board import taxes.
Trump directed particular ire at John Roberts, along with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, accusing them of undermining his efforts to protect American industry.
“Their opposition to these tariffs makes them a disgrace to our nation,” Trump said. “It’s unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”
In dissent, Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh argued that the statute’s broad language provided the president sufficient flexibility during declared economic emergencies. Justice Samuel Alito joined Kavanaugh’s dissent, aligning with Thomas in warning that the ruling could unduly constrain executive authority in matters of national economic security.
Trump noted that he had appointed Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during his first term, but said their votes in the case would not deter him from pursuing his trade agenda.
Despite the setback, Trump insisted the ruling would have little practical effect. He said he planned to use other statutory authorities to reimpose the same or even broader tariffs.
“The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes and authorities as recognized by the entire Court in this terrible decision, and also as recognized by Congress, which they refer to, that are even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs available to me as president of the United States,” he said.
Trump announced that he would sign an executive order later in the day to “impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.” Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the president to address balance-of-payments deficits through temporary import surcharges and quotas, subject to certain procedural requirements and time limits.
Legal scholars said the move could trigger a new round of court challenges, as Section 122 has historically been used sparingly and typically in narrower circumstances. Critics argue that any attempt to replicate the scale of the IEEPA tariffs under alternative authorities would likely face scrutiny over whether the statutory conditions are met.
Trump did not indicate whether his administration would seek to tailor the new tariffs to comply more closely with the Court’s guidance. Instead, he framed the decision as a technical obstacle that could be easily navigated.
“All we’re doing is we’re going through a little bit more complicated process, not complicated very much, but a little more complicated than what we had,” he said. “And we’ll be able to take in more tariffs.”
The president also declined to commit to returning the tens of billions of dollars already collected under the IEEPA-based tariffs. The Supreme Court’s opinion did not directly address whether the funds must be refunded to importers, leaving the issue unresolved.
“They take months and months to write an opinion, and they don’t even discuss that point,” Trump said. “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”
Trade groups and importers had argued that if the tariffs were deemed unlawful, companies should be reimbursed for duties paid. The administration has not yet outlined a mechanism for handling potential refund claims, and legal experts said the matter could spawn additional lawsuits in lower courts.
Trump also said he would not ask Congress to pass new legislation expanding presidential tariff authority.
“I don’t have to. I have the right to do tariffs. And I’ve always had the right to do tariffs. It has all been approved by Congress, so there’s no reason to do it,” he said.
Under the Constitution, Congress holds primary authority over taxation and trade policy, but over decades lawmakers have delegated certain powers to the executive branch through statutes such as IEEPA and the Trade Act of 1974. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores limits to that delegation, reinforcing that emergency powers cannot be interpreted to cover actions not clearly authorized by statute.
Democratic lawmakers welcomed the decision, saying it reaffirmed the separation of powers and prevented what they described as executive overreach. Some Republicans expressed concern that the ruling could weaken the president’s leverage in trade negotiations.
Trump’s remarks come ahead of his scheduled address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night. Many, if not all, of the Supreme Court justices are traditionally invited to attend such speeches, which are held in the House chamber as a symbol of the balance among the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
Asked whether he expected the justices to attend, Trump said he “couldn’t care less.”
“They are barely invited,” he said, even though the president does not have the authority to exclude members of the judiciary from the House or Senate chambers. Attendance at joint sessions is voluntary for justices, and some have chosen to skip such events in the past.
The escalating rhetoric underscores mounting tensions between Trump and the judiciary, which has previously blocked or limited several of his policy initiatives. By vowing to reimpose tariffs under alternative statutes, Trump signaled that the legal fight over his trade agenda is far from over.
Analysts said the administration’s next steps could determine whether the dispute evolves into a prolonged constitutional clash or settles into a narrower debate over statutory interpretation. Either way, the ruling represents a defining moment in the ongoing struggle over the scope of presidential power in economic policymaking.
For now, Trump appears determined to press ahead, framing the Court’s decision not as a defeat but as a procedural detour. “We have many tools,” he said. “And we’re going to use them.”
