Trump administration kicks off new process to try to replace tariffs struck down by Supreme Court
Source: AP
Updated 7:16 PM EDT, March 11, 2026
WASHINGTON (AP) The Trump administration on Wednesday opened a new trade investigation into manufacturing in foreign countries an effort that comes after the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trumps previous use of tariffs by declaring an economic emergency.
Trump and his team have made clear that theyre seeking to replace the hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues after the Supreme Courts February ruling by using different laws to establish new tariffs.
In this case, the administration is starting investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which could eventually lead to new import taxes. But U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, in a Wednesday call with reporters, said he didnt want to prejudge the outcome of the process. The policy remains the same the tools may change depending on, you know, the vagaries of courts and other things, said Greer, stressing that the goal was to protect American jobs.
The start of the process to fully replace Trumps prior tariffs could invite a return of much of the drama that rattled the global economy last year. The since-overturned tariffs led to new frameworks with U.S. trade partners and its unclear what impact a new set of import taxes could have on those agreements. Greer described the trade frameworks as standing on their own and suggested they were separate from the new investigation.
Read more: https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-manufacturing-china-eu-6f4243502a1d8ce6c301f39c083a93e9
Klarkashton
(5,334 posts)underpants
(196,661 posts)Greer indicated that there could be additional Section 301 investigations over issues such as digital service taxes, pharmaceutical drug pricing and ocean pollution, among other possibilities. The Commerce Department has separate trade investigations under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act.
There are timeline pressures for the administration to complete its investigations. The administration has imposed 10% tariffs on foreign-made goods under section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, but those expire after 150 days on July 24. Trump said he planned to raise that import tax to 15%, but he has yet to do so.
bucolic_frolic
(55,287 posts)until something goes through.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(136,006 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(180,248 posts)Kavanaughs dissent argued that the presidents backup plan might succeed, but the majority didnt preapprove it.
MSNow : No, the US Supreme Court didnât say trump has âabsolute right to charge TARIFFSâ differently
— Joe Public ð (@joepublic.bsky.social) 2026-03-16T17:05:56.633Z
www.ms.now/deadline-whi...
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/no-the-supreme-court-didnt-say-trump-has-absolute-right-to-charge-tariffs-differently
Its true that Justice Brett Kavanaughs dissent said that the Courts decision might not prevent Presidents from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under other statutory authorities. But that musing only represented the view of the three dissenters on the nine-member court: Kavanaugh and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stressed that the court wasnt weighing in on those other authorities.
Roberts wrote in a footnote that Kavanaughs dissent surmises that the President could impose most if not all of the tariffs at issue under statutes other than IEEPA. The chief justice wrote that those other authorities contain various combinations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations, and limits on the duration, amount, and scope of the tariffs they authorize. Roberts concluded that the court doesnt speculate on hypothetical cases not before us.
So, contrary to the presidents social media complaint, the court didnt preapprove his tariffing backup plan, which is the subject of new litigation.
The high court could eventually be called on to settle that new litigation, as it did the IEEPA case. But the majority didnt predetermine the outcome of future litigation in that case.