On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the Trump Administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, and numerous trade associations have voiced support for the decision while also raising concerns over unresolved issues regarding tariff policy and pointing out what does remain on the books.
“For the lighting industry, the ruling raises several critical and unresolved questions,” the American Lighting Association said in a post last week.
For starters, the ALA said, it does not address the status of negotiated trade arrangements or informal understandings reached with U.S. trading partners under the threat or expectation of IEEPA-based tariffs. It also noted that the ruling does not address the issue of potential tariff refunds.
“It is also unclear how quickly, and through what specific mechanisms, the Administration will seek to reassert tariff authority.”
It highlighted four potential alternatives the Administration might use, including:
- Section 338 (Tariff Act of 1930): This authority allows the US to enact tariffs against countries deemed to discriminate against US commerce and has been specifically referenced by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
- Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974): Section 122 allows temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days in response to balance-of-payments concerns, an option explicitly suggested by the Court of International Trade as a preferable alternative to IEEPA. President Trump invoked this law over the weekend, announcing a 15% tariff on imports from every country.
- Section 201 (Trade Act of 1974): Section 201 is a safeguard mechanism allowing tariffs of up to 50%, though it requires USITC investigations and public hearings and would take longer to implement.
- IEEPA alternatives: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). One of the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that tariffs are not allowed under IEEPA, but policies like quotas may be. Tariff-rate quotas weren’t raised, but licensing fees were. The administration could potentially enact a rebrand under this same authority.
The ALA said it will closely monitor which statutory pathway the Administration pursues next and will keep its members updated.
The Home Furnishings Association (HFA), the trade group for the furniture industry, likewise noted that Last week’s ruling did not undo Section 201 tariffs on goods imported from China. “Nor does it undo Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, copper, upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets, and bathroom vanities,” it said.
Although the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s authority to use IEEPA for tariffs, “the tariffs remain in effect until official guidance is published,” said Peter Theran, CEO.
As previously reported, the National Retail Federation stated on Friday that it supported the ruling but stressed the need for clarity. It also stressed the importance of issuing tariff refunds to boost the overall economy.
Executive Vice President of Government Relations David French said: “The Supreme Court’s announcement [Friday] regarding tariffs provides much-needed certainty for U.S. businesses and manufacturers, enabling global supply chains to operate without ambiguity. Clear and consistent trade policy is essential for economic growth, creating jobs and opportunities for American families.
“We urge the lower court to ensure a seamless process to refund the tariffs to U.S. importers. The refunds will serve as an economic boost and allow companies to reinvest in their operations, their employees and their customers.”
The uncertainty that has stymied manufacturers since last April looks likely to continue.
Theran told sister publication Furniture Today that while the Supreme Court ruling is significant, it isn’t the final chapter in this saga, and the confusion felt since last spring will likely persist.
“The biggest challenge to our members is the uncertainty and the turbulence of change in tariff strategy and specificity over the past six months,” Theran said. “If anything, this may cause more uncertainty, but that remains to be seen.” — Home Textiles Today, Furniture Today and Gifts & Decorative Accessories contributed to this story
