TLDR
- The US Supreme Court ruled IEEPA does not allow the president to impose tariffs.
- Trump imposed temporary 10% tariffs using Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act.
- Several allies declined or avoided committing warships to the Strait of Hormuz.
- The waterway carries about one fifth of global oil and remains disrupted.
A recent US Supreme Court ruling against Donald Trump’s tariff policy has opened a new political and economic dispute. The decision limited the president’s authority to impose tariffs under emergency powers. At the same time, Trump is facing muted responses from key allies after urging them to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz during rising tensions in the Middle East.
Supreme Court Blocks Tariff Authority Under Emergency Law
The US Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not allow the president to impose tariffs. The decision came in the case Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump. The court issued a 6–3 ruling on February 20. The law was created in 1977 to address national emergencies.
The court said the law does not authorize global import tariffs, removing a legal basis used by the Trump administration for several trade duties. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. President Donald Trump praised them and criticized the court, saying it had “unnecessarily RANSACKED” the United States.
He also said the ruling favored foreign countries that had benefited from earlier trade arrangements. Trump argued that the United States had been taken advantage of for decades. The court decision did not support Trump’s claim that the president has the “absolute right” to impose tariffs in another form. However, the administration began exploring other legal options.
Administration Turns to Alternative Trade Law
After the ruling, Trump shifted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This law allows temporary tariffs during balance of payments concerns. The administration imposed a 10% tariff on goods from many countries. Trump also said the rate could rise to 15%. The duties can remain for 150 days unless Congress approves an extension.
The temporary tariffs are expected to expire in July if lawmakers do not extend them. Trade officials have also launched several investigations under other trade laws. These probes could support permanent tariffs on certain imports. The steps show the administration’s effort to rebuild its trade policy after the court decision. Trump also criticized some judges during his response to the ruling.
He accused US District Judge James Boasberg of “extreme partisan bias” in cases related to federal policy disputes. Meanwhile, the administration continues trade discussions with other countries. US officials were scheduled to meet Mexican counterparts about the USMCA agreement. Trump is also planning a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Reports suggest the timing could change due to recent tensions.
Allies Cautious After US Request on Hormuz Security
Trump also urged several countries to send naval ships to the Strait of Hormuz. The request came after disruptions linked to the US and Israel conflict with Iran. The waterway carries about one fifth of the world’s oil supply. Shipping routes have faced disruption since late February.
In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote that affected countries should help keep the route open. He mentioned China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. “Many Countries will be sending warships, to keep the Strait open and safe,” Trump wrote. However, no government has publicly committed to the request. Japan said it would make an independent decision on the matter.
France described its position as defensive. The United Kingdom declined participation. Australia also rejected the idea of sending ships. South Korea said it was still reviewing the request. China ruled out direct military involvement. The responses show cautious positions from several US partners during the regional crisis. The situation comes as the United States continues to rely on both economic and military tools in foreign policy.





