Trump's Tariff Resurrection: When Courts Say No, Find Another Way

$140 billion in tariff refunds hung in the balance. Then, within hours of the Supreme Court's devastating 6-3 ruling against his trade war, Donald Trump stood before reporters and essentially said: "Hold my Diet Coke."

The president's Friday afternoon press conference was part legal strategy, part political theater, and entirely Trump. He announced a 10% global tariff using Section 122, a different legal authority that bypasses the International Emergency Economic Powers Act the Court had just struck down.

When Plan A Dies, Try Plan B Through Z

The Supreme Court's ruling was unambiguous. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that tariffs are "another form of taxation," and the power to tax belongs to Congress, not the president. It was a textbook separation of powers decision that should have ended Trump's unilateral trade war.

But Trump had been preparing for this moment. Section 122 allows presidents to impose tariffs for up to six months in the name of national security—no congressional approval needed initially. It's a legal authority that's never been tested in court, which makes it both Trump's lifeline and his next legal battlefield.

"I have the right to do tariffs," Trump declared, slamming the door on any congressional cooperation. He also took aim at the three conservative justices who sided against him—Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neal Gorsuch—accusing them without evidence of being "swayed by foreign interests."

The $140 Billion Question Nobody's Answering

Lost in Trump's defiant press conference was a crucial detail: He never said whether companies would get their $140 billion back. That's money American businesses paid in tariffs that the Supreme Court just declared unconstitutional.

For context, that's roughly the GDP of New Zealand. It represents real money that real companies—from Apple importing iPhones to Walmart stocking shelves—paid to the federal government under what the highest court in the land just called an illegal tax.

The silence is telling. Refunding that money would be politically painful for Trump, who's built his brand around being tough on trade. But keeping it raises serious constitutional questions about whether the government can hold onto money collected through unconstitutional means.

Markets Yawn at Constitutional Crisis

Perhaps the most surprising reaction came from Wall Street, which barely blinked. The Dow Jones climbed 100 points (0.2%), while the S&P 500 rose nearly 40 points (0.6%).

This market calm reflects something profound: Investors have become numb to Trump's trade theatrics. After years of tariff threats, legal challenges, and policy reversals, the financial world treats each new development as just another day at the Trump casino.

But this indifference might be misplaced. The legal uncertainty Trump is creating—using untested authorities while ignoring Supreme Court rulings—introduces a new kind of risk that traditional market models struggle to price.

The six-month clock on Section 122 is already ticking. What happens when it runs out?