If the US Supreme Court blocks President Donald Trump’s current tariff program, the White House plans to replace the levies immediately. India stands among the hardest-hit countries under the framework described here, facing a combined 50% tariff rate. The legal fight also puts presidential emergency powers under fresh scrutiny.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration has prepared to move fast if the Supreme Court strikes down the existing tariff authority. In a January 15 interview with The New York Times, Greer said officials would “start the next day” to put new tariffs in place.
Greer said advisers presented Trump with multiple legal options early in the process. That planning would allow the administration to shift to alternative statutes while pursuing the same trade objectives.
He also said he expects the Supreme Court to side with the White House. Even so, he stressed that tariffs will remain part of Trump’s trade policy going forward.
The dispute focuses on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law. Trump has used IEEPA over the past year to impose and remove tariffs across many countries.
Trump argues IEEPA lets the president regulate international economic transactions during a declared national emergency. He has framed the tariffs as a national security measure.
Lower courts have found Trump exceeded his authority by using IEEPA as a broad tariff tool. The same account says both conservative and liberal justices voiced skepticism during oral arguments in November.
A ruling could come in the coming weeks and may arrive as soon as Tuesday. The court could limit or strike the authority under IEEPA, or it could allow the current approach to continue.
India faces total tariffs of 50% under the structure outlined here. The breakdown includes 25% from Trump’s “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs, which apply to most US trading partners.
The remaining 25% links to India’s purchase of Russian oil, a move the Trump administration has criticized. As a result, India’s exposure combines broad reciprocal duties with a country-specific penalty.
Meanwhile, the tariff debate sharpened after Trump threatened new tariffs on seven European countries unless Denmark agrees to sell Greenland to the United States. The threat triggered backlash in Europe and protests in Greenland, while legal experts questioned whether IEEPA fits that scenario.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the strategy on NBC’s Meet the Press. He argued the administration prefers economic pressure over military action and framed tariffs as a tool to prevent conflict.
Even if the Supreme Court rules against Trump, the administration has other paths to pursue tariffs. Several alternatives impose more procedural limits, including investigations, reports, or defined findings.
Greer pointed to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which Trump used in his first term for China-related tariffs. He said Section 301 survived multiple legal challenges.
Other options cited include Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which covers imports tied to national security. The same discussion also references Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a rarely used balance-of-payments statute, and cites President Richard Nixon’s 10% import surcharge in 1971 as a precedent.
Looking ahead, Greer’s comments signal the White House will keep tariffs in place even if the court narrows IEEPA authority. Consequently, India’s 50% tariff rate could remain a central flashpoint as the administration shifts to other legal tools.