President Donald Trump is utilizing new legal mechanisms to impose tariffs after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated previous measures earlier in 2026 [1, 3].
This shift represents a strategic effort to sustain the administration's trade agenda and generate revenue following a significant judicial setback. The pivot signals that the executive branch will seek alternative statutory authorities to bypass the restrictions set by the high court.
The Supreme Court decision struck down tariffs that were previously imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [1, 3]. Following that ruling, the government issued approximately $100 billion [3] in tariff refunds.
To rebuild the tariff framework, the administration is now turning to sector-specific statutes and forced-labor enforcement authority [1, 2, 3]. Under this forced-labor enforcement approach, the administration is imposing tariffs ranging from 10 percent to 12.5 percent [4] on imports from 60 countries [4].
Additionally, the administration is targeting Brazil with a proposed tariff rate of 25 percent [1]. These moves are intended to maintain the pressure of the trade war despite the loss of the IEEPA framework [2, 3].
The new approach has already triggered significant legal pushback. Twenty-five states [5] have filed lawsuits against the administration over this pivot in tariff strategy [5]. These states argue that the new methods are an improper attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling.
White House officials said the new tools are legal and necessary to protect national interests. The administration continues to explore other tariff tools it could deploy as the legal battles unfold [2].
“The government issued approximately $100 billion in tariff refunds.”
The administration's transition from emergency powers to forced-labor and sector-specific statutes indicates a move toward more targeted, albeit legally precarious, trade tools. By utilizing labor enforcement, the executive branch can bypass broad judicial restrictions on 'emergency' declarations, though the scale of the state-led lawsuits suggests a prolonged constitutional conflict over the limits of presidential authority in trade policy.
