The companies argued that the Trump administration was asserting sweeping tariff powers of the kind that the Supreme Court in February said the Trump administration did not have.
President Trump threatens EU with higher auto tariffs amid trade tensions
President Donald Trump has threatened to raise tariffs on European Union cars to 25%, claiming the European Union is “not abiding by trade agreements.”
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 15 refused to hear from companies challenging President Donald Trump’s 2018 tariffs on China that were imposed under separate law from the emergency tariffs the high court ruled in February.
The judge’s decision not to review rulings upholding these tariffs could embolden the administration as it seeks to replace many of the emergency tariffs that President Trump sought to impose last year.
It also leaves in place import fees that businesses opposed to the tariffs say cost U.S. consumers nearly $75 billion a year.
At issue were some of the tariffs imposed on Chinese imports during the first Trump administration under the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the United States to take action against unfair trade practices in other countries.
In June, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative proposed imposing tariffs of up to 12.5% on imports from 60 countries, citing insufficient enforcement of forced labor. If implemented in conjunction with recent changes to steel and aluminum tariffs, the money raised could make up for roughly half of the expected revenue losses from the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Trump’s other tariffs, according to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Using trade law instead of emergency authorities to impose tariffs is a more complex process.
But businesses challenging the 2018 tariffs argued that even if the administration conducts fact-finding and holds hearings on other countries’ trade practices, it would still be too easy to raise tariffs significantly.
HMTX Industries and other flooring and electronics companies hit by the tariffs said the development came after the first Trump administration imposed additional tariffs on $320 billion worth of imports, in retaliation for China’s initial tariffs on $50 billion worth of imports.
The administration used its authority under the Trade Act to modify existing tariffs.
“But Congress nowhere gave[the U.S. Trade Representative]vast powers to wage an open-ended trade war under its modest amendment,” lawyers for the companies that challenged the tariffs said in their appeal.
They said the court should settle whether there are limits to the administration’s ability to expand tariffs under the trade law, arguing that it is “almost inevitable” that the government will use the “loophole” again.
The administration countered that the law does not limit its ability to respond to developments “unless new tariffs are fundamentally transformative.”
And if President Trump again uses trade law to impose and then raise tariffs, courts “will have ample opportunity to address the scope of those provisions,” the Justice Department wrote in its filing.
