Washington – After losing in the lower courts, President Donald Trump is planning to take his case to impose a unilateral tariff before the Supreme Court and the Public Square.
But his aides have also explored alternative methods to impose import taxes on foreign goods, according to a senior White House official and two people are familiar with internal discussions.
Backup plans were part of the internal discussions for several months because some White House officials expected the courts to intervene to stop the Trump tariff, which challenges the way he used to impose – which was prompted by senior trade advisor Peter Navarro – according to two people familiar with the dynamics.
Trump was unable to use the customs tariff to force better trade conditions with many foreign countries at the speed he wanted, and the court battle may delay those negotiations.
But even if the Supreme Court rejects Trump, he will be ready to move forward with other tariff options, as these people said.
On Wednesday, Trump asked the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeal that the National Security Law in the 1970s, the IEEPA Economic Forces Law (IEPA), does not give the president the authority to set definitions.
In Resolution 7-4, the majority of judges in the American Court of Appeal of the Federal Department ruled that although the law, which Trump cited in a series of executive orders, gives the president important emergency powers, “none of these includes explicitly the ability to impose definitions, duties or tax authority.”
Trump’s allies say they are confident that the Supreme Court, as Trump was chosen by Trump three judges appointed by Republicans during his first term, with a more suitable explanation for the authority of the executive authority. One of the republican workers near the White House described the court that is looking for a justification to preserve or expand the president’s authority, instead of the reason for limiting it.
Even if it ends with the judges of allowing the position of the Court of Appeal, Trump has a series of options to follow the tariff through a series of laws in which Congress delegated his constitutional authority to impose definitions on the president.
Section 232 of the 1962 commercial expansion law, which enables the president to amend duties on certain goods “so that these imports are not threatened with weak national security” after the administrative investigation of commercial practices. Many current and suspended definitions in Trump, on elements such as steel, aluminum and cars, are under Article 232 and will not be directly affected by a negative rule over its use of IEPA.
Another one, Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Law, gives the American Representative Authority to discuss whether the rights of the United States have been rejected under any trade agreement, and in the direction of the president, legal measures to correct this. With the president’s concerned identification powers, it is not clear how section 301 can be used or will be used to implement definitions.
None of these laws stipulates a kind of hand-related tariff authority that Trump has sought through IEPA, and each comes with his own disadvantages-legal and logistical-where Trump tries to use the duties strength to give America a stronger hand in international trade.
However, these other ways are a great reason because some foreign officials say that they do not amend their strategies based on the last court ruling or the possibility that the Supreme Court will turn them out.
“This does not change anything,” said a foreign government official. “You cannot enter into negotiations expected to offer something from the outside a turning point.”
A senior White House official said regardless of the results of the court, the Trump administration will make the case to the public that Trump has national security to continue to impose customs duties. Trump used the customs tariff to try to force other countries, including Russia, India and Pakistan, to end or avoid wars.
However, the uncertainty about the various aspects of Trump’s tariff policies – including the fighting of the court and Article 232, which looms on the horizon in the Ministry of Commerce – delays the administration’s ability to reduce deals with foreign countries, according to a person close to the White House working on commercial issues.
“Everything is a kind of interlock together,” said this person. “It has made it very difficult for negotiators to obtain some of these agreements.”