The US Supreme Court concluded that the reciprocal tariffs set by the Trump administration were unlawful, citing a lack of proper legislative support. This judgment aligns with pre-existing forecasts, pointing out that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which was used to justify these tariffs, was not intended for such measures and had previously been confined to sanctions against foreign terrorist organizations. Experts indicate that the ruling challenges the constitutional authority of the president to impose tariffs unilaterally without congressional approval, highlighting a significant limitation on presidential power.

In response to the Supreme Court's ruling, President Trump has signaled an intent to enact a uniform 10% tariff globally based on Section 122 of the Trade Act. While this provision allows for tariffs to mitigate substantial trade deficits, its applicability is limited to a maximum of 150 days, rendering it temporary. Experts caution that the reliance on such legal bases may invite backlash from Congress and the public, complicating future tariff initiatives.

Furthermore, discussions have emerged regarding potential additional investigations under various trade laws that could justify further tariffs on sectors like automotive and steel. However, the feasibility of implementing wide-ranging assessments on all imports is deemed impractical. Experts underscore the complexities involved in these proposed tariffs, suggesting that any attempt to broadly regulate and investigate all imports will likely be met with considerable resistance from both governmental bodies and the public.