Trump responds to Supreme Court loss with new 10% tariff, leaving Canada to wait for fine print

U.S. Sublime margaret court finds ruff overstepped potency in imposing tariffs under emergency law

U.S. Supreme Court finds Trump overstepped authority in imposing tariffs under emergency law

Joly asked about U.S. Top court ruling on tariffs

Are Trump’s global tariffs illegal? | About That

I'm Anis Heydari, a senior reporter covering business and economics. 

I just spoke with a small business in St. Thomas, Ont., that has been dealing with the IEEPA tariffs for months. Today's news offered a glimmer of hope that was quickly clouded over by confusion and uncertainty.

Railway City Hobbies imports a lot of unique items and parts from countries such as China, and sells them in both Canada and the United States.

Owner Jeff Grove said his sales were badly hit as customers turned away from higher prices due to tariffs. He also had to pay some of the tariffs himself as the importer.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, he reached out to his customs broker to ask about refunds — and got a confusing answer that he said essentially amounted to "no."

With Trump now threatening a blanket 10 per cent tariff instead, Grove's business could see a benefit. That would be less than the 20 per cent tariff the goods he imported from China were facing before this ruling.

Ruffman says her company's decision was not politically motivated. The tariffs, she said, were threatening to put them out of business.

"It was do something or face death," she said. "We have 500 employees and they rely on us every two weeks to pay their bills."

She says Learning Resources strongly believes the tariffs imposed under emergency powers law were illegal, and they forced the company into the position of being "a tax collector on behalf of the government."

"We believe that our money is better spent investing back into the community and creating jobs," she said. "It's very humbling to see that the Supreme Court agreed with us."

Elana Woldenberg Ruffman says she's not bothered that Trump called her and her colleagues "sleazebags" for challenging his tariffs all the way to the Supreme Court and winning. 

Ruffman is the vice-president of marketing and product development for Learning Resources, a family-owned educational toy company that was the lead plaintiff in today's case.

"We know who we are," Ruffman said in an interview with As It Happens host Nil Kӧksal. 

"We make resources for kids that are used in schools and in homes, and that's really what we want to be doing. We want to go back to making toys."

She was asking whether Canadian exports will be hit by Trump’s new 10 per cent global tariff, or if they’ll be exempt under CUSMA. 

A spokesperson provided little clarity, but suggested that we should stay tuned. 

"Once something is signed we will be releasing paper that will cover this," said the White House official. 

Trump has yet to sign the executive order that would trigger the 10 per cent tariff, which he said he would do today. 

U.S. House votes against Trump's tariffs on Canada

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution against President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canadian goods, rebuking the administration for launching a trade war with its northern neighbour. Congress has the authority to review presidential declarations. But even if the resolution also passes the Senate with a simple majority, Trump could veto it, keeping the emergency declaration and tariffs in place.

One former diplomat is calling on congressional Republicans to reject tariffs against Canada (as a reminder, we still don't know how CUSMA-compliant goods will be impacted by the Section 122 tariffs that Trump suggested he will impose on Monday).

McKenna noted that other countries had more at stake in the Supreme Court's ruling on IEEPA tariffs. "But for me, this is a matter of principle. That particular avenue was rejected," he said.

Reminding viewers that six Republican lawmakers voted with the Democrats last week to overturn tariffs against Canada, McKenna said he believes that "should this get to Congress — which is one option available to the president — there's going to be real pushback from Congress in imposing tariffs on Canada."

Time will tell how things will play out after Trump — visibly angry — vowed to impose 10 per cent "global" tariffs. For one thing, he didn't list any countries by name.

It's also unclear what Trump will do if and when his new tariffs expire. The policy he's using — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — only affords him temporary authority. As my colleague Jenna said, tariffs under this legal mechanism are in effect for 150 days, unless Congress votes to extend them.

Finally, we don't yet know whether and how this will affect trade covered by CUSMA. 

Trump is yet to sign the executive order that would make these tariffs a real policy, so it's possible we will get more information once that order is published.

Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority opinion.

"The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history and precedent, they are clearly lawful," wrote Kavanaugh.

Both Kavanaugh and Thomas, among other reasons, cited the fact that U.S. President Richard Nixon utilized a precursor to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that was upheld by the courts, and which Congress left little unchanged when crafting the 1977 IEEPA legislation. 

The two justices argued Congress can delegate authority to import tariffs to a president.  

"Importantly, IEEPA's authorization for the president to impose tariffs did not grant the president any new substantive power," wrote Kavanaugh. "Since the founding, numerous statutes have authorized — and still do authorize — the president to impose tariffs and other foreign import restrictions. IEEPA merely allows the president to impose tariffs somewhat more efficiently to deal with foreign threats during national emergencies."

You can read the majority and dissenting opinions of Learning Resources, Inc. V. Trump here.

If you thought Trump was going to accept the Supreme Court's decision striking down his IEEPA tariffs, even if grudgingly, this news conference shows clearly otherwise. 

The intensity of his frustration with the three conservative justices who ruled against him was obvious. But beyond lashing out at them verbally, such as calling the decision "an embarrassment to their families," Trump has no way of punishing them. 

He does however have ways to punish other countries with other tariffs, and that will be his next step. 

While Trump clearly hates this decision, he simultaneously tried to give the impression that it doesn't matter to him, claiming he can now impose even steeper tariffs than he'd done under IEEPA. 

"The numbers could be far greater than the hundreds of billions we've already taken in," he said, without providing evidence. 

Sure, this is his Plan B. But it's a Plan B for a reason. The authorities that Trump retains to impose tariffs are nowhere near as nimble as what he tried to do with IEEPA.

The start of Plan B is a global 10 per cent tariff that can only be imposed for 150 days, at which point it can only be extended by congressional approval. 

Clow said it is "good news" that the tariffs were struck down and that the U.S. Supreme Court "seemingly uncharacteristically" stood up to Trump. 

"For Canada and for the talks upcoming, it doesn't actually change a lot," he said.

Clow said this is "one less tool" the president has to impose tariffs, but said Canada should expect Trump will "plow forward" with more tariffs to replace the ones he lost today. 

"Most of the tariffs on Canada, steel, aluminum, lumber, autos, are not affected by today's ruling, so those tariffs are still in place," he said. He also said the issues discussed in the upcoming CUSMA review are not impacted by today's ruling.

"We've got a tough road ahead and I'm actually quite pessimistic on how those talks are going to unfold."

Ring ring Jamieson Greer, it's Canada on the other line.

It's unclear what the latest global tariff threats coming out of Trump's mouth will mean north of the border.

We've reached out to the Canadian government for reaction. But if history serves as a guide, officials are probably trying to figure out whether Canada will receive any exemptions under CUSMA.

We likely won't see additional public reaction from Carney or cabinet ministers until that is sorted.

---

---