Potential Supreme Court Challenges to Trump’s Tariffs

On November 3, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This act had never been utilized for such purposes before, leading to debates over its appropriateness. As the controversy unfolds, Trump’s administration has begun redirecting its tariff strategy towards more established legal frameworks, such as those aimed at protecting national security and addressing unfair trade practices.

The tariffs being challenged fall into three significant categories under IEEPA: those related to fentanyl trafficking, reciprocal tariffs aimed at reducing the trade deficit, and punitive tariffs based on non-trade political issues.

1. Fentanyl-Related Tariffs:

   • Tariffs on goods from China and Hong Kong were reduced from 20% to 10%, generating $28.9 billion.
   • A 25% tariff on non-compliant Mexican goods related to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) collected $5.7 billion.
   • Similarly, Canada faced a 25% tariff on non-USMCA compliant goods, with an additional impending 10% tariff that could bring in another $2 billion.

2. Reciprocal Tariffs:

   • Tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% were applied to goods from various trading partners, excluding Russia, producing the highest revenue within IEEPA at $51.6 billion. Agreements to lower these tariffs have been established with several partners, including the European Union and Japan, suggesting that these reductions will continue regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

3. Punitive Tariffs:

   • Brazil faced a 40% tariff plus a 10% reciprocal tariff due to actions against former President Jair Bolsonaro, resulting in $292 million in collections.
   • India incurred a 25% tariff in addition to a reciprocal tariff for purchasing Russian oil, contributing $274 million.

Tariffs Outside the Supreme Court Case

The Supreme Court’s deliberations will not affect tariffs imposed through other legal frameworks, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act.

• Sectoral Duties (Section 232):
  Tariffs imposed for national security include:

  • 50% on steel ($4.8 billion)
  • 50% on aluminum ($3 billion)
  • 25% on autos ($18.3 billion)
  • 10-50% on other categories, like timber and copper.
    Ongoing investigations are exploring tariffs in critical sectors such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.

• Unfair Trade Practices (Section 301):
  Notable tariffs here include:

  • 7.5%-25% on Chinese imports, generating $35 billion.
  • Other fees on Chinese shipping vessels and port equipment which are currently suspended under a de-escalation plan with China.

• Global Safeguard Tariffs (Section 201):
  A 15% tariff on solar cells and modules aims to shield domestic industries from import surges and is set to expire soon unless renewed.

The outcomes of the Supreme Court’s hearings could have lasting implications on U.S. trade policy and economic relations with multiple countries.

Source link