When the Supreme Court struck down President ’s sweeping tariffs earlier this year, many assumed the trade war chapter had closed — or at least paused. It didn’t.


Instead, the administration pivoted quickly, reaching for a little-known law called Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The message from the White House was clear: If one legal door closes, we’ll find another.


But here’s the big question now echoing across Washington and Wall Street — could this new move face the same legal fate?


Let’s break it down in simple terms.


What Just Happened?


The Supreme Court ruled that Trump overstepped his authority when he used emergency powers (under IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs. The Court basically said: Tariffs are Congress’s job unless Congress clearly gives the president that power.


So instead of walking away, the administration turned to Section 122, a law passed in the 1970s during a time of currency chaos and balance-of-payments crises.


Under Section 122, a president can temporarily impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days — but only if the U.S. is facing serious international payments problems.


That condition is the heart of the controversy.


The Core Issue: Is There Really a “Crisis”?


Section 122 was designed for emergencies — situations where the U.S. dollar was collapsing or the country couldn’t manage international payments.


Today, the U.S. runs trade deficits, yes. But it also attracts massive foreign investment. In modern economics, trade deficits alone don’t equal crisis.


Many legal experts argue:

  • The U.S. dollar is strong.


  • Financial markets are stable.


  • There is no classic “balance-of-payments emergency.”


If there’s no qualifying emergency, critics say, then Section 122 may not legally apply.


And that opens the door to lawsuits.



Why Courts Might Push Back Again


There are three major legal pressure points:


1️⃣ Congress Controls Tariffs


The U.S. Constitution gives Congress — not the president — authority over tariffs. Courts have recently shown they’re willing to limit executive power when it stretches too far.


If judges believe Section 122 is being used as a workaround to impose long-term trade policy, they may step in again.



2️⃣ It’s Meant to Be Temporary


Section 122 only allows tariffs for 150 days unless Congress extends them. That means this isn’t designed as a permanent trade strategy.


If the administration tries to use it as one, courts could see that as exceeding the law’s intent.



3️⃣ It Must Be Applied Fairly


Section 122 measures must be uniform — not selectively targeting certain countries.


If enforcement appears politically targeted or strategically selective, that could invite additional legal scrutiny.



The Political Reality


Even if the courts don’t immediately block these tariffs, Congress becomes the next battleground.


After 150 days, lawmakers must decide whether to extend or formalize the tariffs. That’s a tough sell in a divided political climate — especially if consumers start feeling higher prices.


Meanwhile, global trading partners could retaliate, escalating tensions and possibly bringing international legal challenges.



The Bigger Picture


This isn’t just about tariffs. It’s about power.


The Supreme Court’s earlier decision signaled that sweeping economic moves require clear congressional backing. If Section 122 is viewed as another attempt to stretch executive authority, history could repeat itself.


For markets, businesses, and global partners, the uncertainty is the real story.


The administration calls this a necessary defense of American trade interests.


Critics call it a legal gamble.


Either way, the fight over Section 122 may become the next major chapter in America’s ongoing tug-of-war between presidential power and constitutional limits.


And this time, both Wall Street and Washington are watching closely.