Trump’s tariff battle heads to the US Supreme Court—what happens next? What are the key moments?

Trump’s tariff battle heads to the US Supreme Court—what happens next? What are the key moments?

```

A legal storm over the U.S. president’s trade powers is intensifying.

According to CCTV News, on August 29 local time, a U.S. appellate court ruled that most of former President Trump’s global tariff policies were illegal. The court stated that these additional tariffs could remain in effect until October 14 to allow the U.S. government to appeal to the Supreme Court.

This ruling is a stern judicial rebuke of the core economic policies of the current U.S. administration and takes the battle directly to the Supreme Court. Although the ruling is postponed until October 14, providing the White House time to appeal, it undeniably casts a heavy shadow of uncertainty on U.S. trade strategy.

How will this key legal challenge evolve? Are there other options remaining in the White House’s “toolbox”?

According to media reports, the direction of this legal showdown will become clearer in the coming weeks. The White House has submitted an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court on September 3.

The next key date is October 14, when the appellate court’s stay will expire. If the Supreme Court does not intervene by then, the August 29 ruling will take effect, and tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) will automatically lapse.

Additionally, rulings from other circuit courts may also affect the situation. The Ninth Circuit and the Trump-friendly D.C. Circuit will hear related cases on September 17 and September 30, respectively. If there is a “circuit split” with rulings contrary to the appellate court, it will greatly increase the pressure on the Supreme Court to hear the case. Should the Supreme Court take the case, oral arguments may be held in the fourth quarter of 2025, with a final ruling expected in the first quarter of 2026.

The “Plan B” for Tariff Policy

Even if the use of IEEPA is restricted, the Trump administration still has other tools to maintain tariff pressure. According to analysis, the government may turn to the following legal authorizations:

  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act: Allows imposition of tariffs on “strategic industries” such as steel, chips, EV batteries, and pharmaceuticals on national security grounds.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act: Allows the president to impose up to a 15% tariff on all imports in emergencies, for a maximum of 150 days.
  • Section 338 of the Tariff Act: Allows up to 50% retaliatory tariffs after investigation.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act.

Analysis indicates that even if the Supreme Court ultimately rules against the White House, the Trump administration may still make up for the expected loss of about $150 billion in revenue by selectively raising tariffs.

Potential Winners and Losers

According to analysis by investment research firm TS Lombard, the outcome of this legal battle will produce various winners and losers.

If the Supreme Court ultimately restricts the president’s tariff powers, large retailers such as Amazon and Walmart will be winners, as lower tariffs mean decreased import costs and more competitive pricing. Vietnam, ASEAN exporters, as well as Brazil and India, previously affected by high tariffs, may also see some easing of trade barriers. For markets, limits on presidential power are expected to foster a positive backdrop for U.S. and global equity markets.

On the other hand, the losers may include the U.S. bond market, as decreased tariff revenue will further strain the already tight fiscal deficit. In addition, even if the IEEPA tariffs are removed, tariffs on U.S. strategic industries such as semiconductors, electric vehicles, pharmaceuticals, and steel may persist, bringing volatility to related supply chains. The global shipping and logistics industries will also face new compliance obstacles and unpredictable costs due to a fragmented trade policy.

Risk Disclaimer and Limitation of LiabilityThe market involves risks; investment should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account individual users’ specific investment objectives, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article suit their particular situation. Investment decisions made accordingly are at your own risk. ```