Kavanagh’s ‘Roadmap’ Ruling Gives Trump Tariff Wiggle Room: Expert
A recent Supreme Court decision limiting President Donald J. Trump’s use of sweeping tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) may not be the final word on the administration’s trade strategy.
While the Court ruled that the president could not rely on IEEPA to impose broad global tariffs, legal analysts note that alternative statutory pathways remain available — albeit narrower and more procedurally complex.
Appearing on The Bulwark’s “Illegal News” podcast, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Obama administration, acknowledged that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent outlined potential options for the White House.
“Justice Kavanaugh did sort of lay out a bit of a roadmap for saying that, yes, there are avenues for the president to get some tariffs,” Williams said during the interview.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh argued for broader executive authority under IEEPA but noted that other statutes could authorize more limited tariffs. He pointed to the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Tariff Act of 1930 as alternative legal mechanisms Congress has placed at a president’s disposal.
However, these statutes come with guardrails. Tariffs imposed under those laws are generally temporary, carry lower maximum rates, and require specific factual findings to justify their use. Kavanaugh observed that “the president checked the wrong statutory box” when relying on IEEPA.
President Trump, for his part, publicly praised Kavanaugh’s dissent and has already pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act as a new legal basis for imposing tariffs. Yet even critics acknowledge that the president retains meaningful authority — just not the sweeping, rapid authority IEEPA would have provided.
Williams likened the situation to winning a luxury vehicle only to be handed an older model instead.
“It is impossible for the president to get the kinds of tariffs, one, that he ran on, and two, that he tried to put in place on ‘Liberation Day,’ whatever it was, in April of [2025],” said Williams.
Still, during his recent State of the Union address, President Trump made clear he has no intention of abandoning his tariff-driven trade agenda. He vowed to continue implementing duties through alternative statutory frameworks after the Court curtailed part of his original program.
Trump said the tariffs “will remain in place until fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes,” adding, “They have been tested for a long time. They’re a little more complex, but they’re actually probably better.”
The administration is currently utilizing Section 122 authority, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 150 days. Legal experts caution that Congress is unlikely to extend tariffs beyond that statutory window. Unless the president can lawfully prolong them independently, he may need to shift to another trade provision to maintain leverage.
Supporters of the president argue that Congress has already delegated substantial trade authority to the executive branch — and that Trump is well within his constitutional role to use those tools to protect American industry, rebalance trade deficits, and counter foreign economic manipulation.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer confirmed that the administration’s broader trade posture will remain intact despite the Court’s ruling.
“The trade policy we’ve had for the past year is going to remain the same,” Greer said.
“The Supreme Court came down and they said that there’s one element of the president’s tariff program where he couldn’t use that particular legal authority. Congress has given several other legal authorities. And so we’re just going to use those instead,” he added.
For constitutional conservatives, the episode underscores an enduring tension between executive flexibility in matters of national economic security and judicial enforcement of statutory boundaries. For the Trump administration, however, the message is clear: the tariff strategy is not retreating — it is recalibrating.