The U.S. Supreme Court may rule tonight on the IEEPA tariff case, but the White House has prepared alternative legal grounds, and the market continues to watch for subsequent administrative actions.
(Background: Can the $2,000 “tariff bonus” announced by Trump truly bring a liquidity feast?)
(Additional context: Trump delivered a national security strategy speech that did not mention cryptocurrencies or blockchain, only “financial innovation”)

Table of Contents

• White House leverage: multiple legal grounds ensure taxing authority
• Refund risk: $140 billion in liquidity may be restricted
• Market observation: the ruling is not the end, legal iteration is the key

Originally, the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to announce its final decision on January 9 regarding the Trump administration’s “global reciprocal tariffs” policy, but it was later postponed. However, according to a report by The New York Times on the 19th, on January 20, Eastern Time, the nine justices may rule on whether reciprocal tariffs are unconstitutional.

This ruling concerns billions of dollars in tariffs accumulated since 2025 and the global supply chain. Some investors had already sold off risk assets in anticipation. Nonetheless, the White House and trade team have recently hinted multiple times that even if found unconstitutional, the administration has sufficient backup plans, and the tariff structure may be difficult to dismantle in the short term.

White House leverage: multiple legal grounds ensure taxing authority

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated plainly in an interview with The New York Times on the 18th:

If the court rules unfavorably, the White House will not stop; we can restart measures the next day using other legal authorizations.

This statement highlights the administration’s multi-pronged strategy: if IEEPA loses effectiveness, Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act can take over, allowing the President to impose temporary additional tariffs of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days on imported goods without Congressional approval. During this period, other tools can be extended based on international balance of payments, ensuring continuous taxing authority.

Additionally, those familiar with the 2018 trade war are no strangers to Sections 232 and 301. The former imposes tariffs on steel, aluminum, and semiconductors under the guise of “national security”; the latter targets “unfair trade practices.” Over the past eight years, the White House has repeatedly used these two old tools to create new tariff spaces, demonstrating that alternative legal grounds are mature.

Refund risk: $140 billion in liquidity may be restricted

If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, companies could theoretically demand refunds for tariffs paid since 2025. PwC’s latest estimate suggests the scale is about $140 billion, and the administration will face significant refund pressures.

However, Treasury Secretary Yellen has recently emphasized multiple times that tariffs are “a necessary economic measure to prevent hot wars,” implying that the Treasury will delay or process refunds in batches under the pretext of national security. Funds will not flow out immediately, alleviating direct market impacts on dollar liquidity.

Market observation: the ruling is not the end, legal iteration is the key

Based on current information, regardless of the outcome, the impact on short-term tariff policies may be limited. The core reason is that the executive branch has normalized emergency measures and connected multiple historical legal sources into a closed loop. If the ruling favors Trump, IEEPA will continue to operate; if not, Sections 122, 232, and 301 can immediately fill the gap.

Currently, three main paths are under discussion:

• The first is a “mixed ruling”: the court may determine that tariffs based on trade deficits exceed IEEPA’s authority but retain some items related to national security.
• The second is “full policy confirmation,” symbolizing a significant concentration of tariff legislative power in the White House.
• The third is “full government defeat.”

For the global supply chain, this ruling will also affect procurement costs and sourcing strategies. But regardless of the outcome, the Trump administration has repeatedly indicated it will not give up the tariff tool, suggesting that international trade frictions in 2026 may still be the norm.