U.S. Tariffs shift as court curbs IEEPA, Section 122 in play

Answer: Plan unchanged; 15% tariff possible for 150 days under Section 122

White House officials say the 15% global tariff plan remains unchanged, but the timing for moving to a 15% rate is unclear, according to the White House. The policy objective is intact even as implementation details are in flux.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits temporary global tariffs up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days, as reported by news/trump-tariffs-15-percent-150-days-uncertainty-businesses-trade/?utm_source=openai” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener”>CBS News. Continuing beyond that window would require additional legal or congressional steps.

After the Supreme Court struck down portions of earlier tariffs, the administration pivoted toward Section 122 to pursue its global rate, as per Al Jazeera. That shift narrows the timeline and could increase the role for Congress.

The ruling reshapes the sequencing and durability of any new tariff program. It also heightens legal scrutiny over the statutory basis, limiting room for expansive interpretations.

Supply chains could await clarity for some time after the Supreme Court’s decision, according to Automotive News. Companies face pricing, contracting, and inventory decisions that hinge on start dates and coverage scopes.

Procurement teams may revisit vendor terms and hedging assumptions while monitoring any 150-day rollout and potential extensions. Import-dependent sectors could see pass-through effects, but the magnitude depends on exclusions and timing.

At the time of this writing, Apple Inc. shares traded at $272.64, up 2.43% intraday, based on data from NasdaqGS. That snapshot provides context rather than a read-through on tariff outcomes.

Legal framework and expert views on Section 122

Supreme Court ruling prompted a pivot to Section 122 and its 150‑day cap

The administration is moving forward with an alternative tariff pathway after the Court limited its earlier authority, as reported by Scripps News. Section 122’s 150-day cap sets a firm temporal boundary on unilateral action.

Extending tariffs beyond that period would likely require Congress or a different statutory hook. That legal structure shapes business planning, trading partner reactions, and the durability of any tariff schedule.

Trade deficits vs balance‑of‑payments: Katyal’s critique and Gopinath’s support

Legal debate centers on whether Section 122 addresses trade deficits or balance‑of‑payments deficits, with prior government arguments distinguishing the two, according to Tribune India. “If he wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress,” said Neal Katyal, former Acting U.S. Solicitor General.

Separately, Gita Gopinath has backed the distinction, calling confusion between the concepts basic international economics, as reported by The Times of India. That alignment underscores both legal and economic skepticism about a trade‑deficit rationale under Section 122.

FAQ about Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974

What did the Supreme Court ruling change about the administration’s tariff authority and implementation path?

It curtailed the prior approach and steered implementation toward Section 122’s temporary authority. That path caps tariffs at 15% for 150 days, tightening timelines and oversight.

Does Section 122 cover trade deficits or only balance-of-payments deficits, and why does that distinction matter?

Section 122’s scope is contested. Critics say it targets balance‑of‑payments deficits, not trade gaps, an interpretation that could constrain justification and expose actions to legal challenge.