Kavanagh’s ‘Roadmap’ Ruling Gives Trump Tariff Wiggle Room: Expert
A Supreme Court ruling blocking President Donald Trump’s use of broad tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) may still leave alternative avenues available to the administration, according to a legal analyst on Wednesday.
Elliot Williams, a CNN legal analyst and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Obama administration, discussed the decision on The Bulwark’s “Illegal News” podcast. Williams said that although the Court rejected Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose sweeping global tariffs, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent identified other statutory mechanisms that could allow the president to levy tariffs under more limited circumstances.
“Justice Kavanaugh did sort of lay out a bit of a roadmap for saying that, yes, there are avenues for the president to get some tariffs,” Williams said during the interview.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh expressed support for broader presidential tariff authority under IEEPA but noted that other statutes may provide limited authority. He referenced the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tariff Act of 1930 as potential alternative legal bases for tariffs.
The laws allow a president to impose tariffs, but these tariffs are only temporary, have lower maximum rates than those previously used by Trump, and require him to provide specific findings to justify their implementation. In his dissent, Kavanaugh pointed out that “the president checked the wrong statutory box” when he issued tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Trump later expressed that he was “proud” of Kavanaugh’s dissent during a briefing about the decision and has moved forward with plans to implement new tariffs using Section 122 of the Trade Act. However, Williams explained that without the IEEPA, Trump’s ability to impose tariffs as quickly and broadly as he had done before is no longer feasible, comparing his situation to winning a luxury car but then being forced to drive an older, beat-up model.
“It is impossible for the president to get the kinds of tariffs, one, that he ran on, and two, that he tried to put in place on ‘Liberation Day,’ whatever it was, in April of [2025],” said Williams.
During his State of the Union address, Trump announced that his administration plans to maintain tariffs by utilizing alternative legal statutes after the Supreme Court rejected part of his tariff program last week. He reiterated his belief that tariff revenue could eventually replace federal income taxes.
Trump said the tariffs “will remain in place until fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes,” adding, “They have been tested for a long time. They’re a little more complex, but they’re actually probably better.”
Legal experts pointed out that the statute the administration is currently using, Section 122, is only a temporary measure. They highlighted that the tariffs can last only 150 days under this authority, and Congress has indicated that they are unlikely to renew the tariffs after that period. Experts noted that unless the president can independently extend the tariffs after 150 days, he will need to pursue another legal option.
Legal experts have pointed out that the statute the administration is currently using, Section 122, serves as a temporary solution. They highlight a significant issue: the tariffs imposed under this authority can only remain in effect for 150 days. Furthermore, Congress has indicated that it is unlikely to renew them after this period. Experts suggest that unless the president can independently extend the tariffs after 150 days, he will need to explore alternative legal options.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer stated that the administration intends to maintain its current trade strategy by utilizing alternative authorities. “The trade policy we’ve had for the past year is going to remain the same,” Greer said.
“The Supreme Court came down and they said that there’s one element of the president’s tariff program where he couldn’t use that particular legal authority. Congress has given several other legal authorities. And so we’re just going to use those instead,” he added.
Breaking, PAM BONDI discloses that she has been diagnosed with…
____BY 118_____
Steve Yates discusses Pam Bondi's contributions after her removal as attorney general
Steve Yates, former deputy national security advisor for Vice President Cheney, reflects on Attorney General Pam Bondi's significant contributions, especially in fighting illicit fentanyl and advocating for victims.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Former Attorney General Pam Bondi was diagnosed with thyroid cancer shortly after departing the Department of Justice last month, according to a report.
Bondi, 60, who left her role at the Justice Department in early April, underwent treatment and is recovering, a source told Axios.
Katie Miller, a former White House staffer and podcast host who is married to White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller, reposted the report on X on Tuesday.
"Pam has been quietly kicking cancer's ass the last few weeks," she wrote.
PAM BONDI CANCELS APPEARANCE AT ANTI-TRAFFICKING SUMMIT OVER MEDICAL ISSUE
Attorney General Pam Bondi takes her seat before testifying at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the Department of Justice on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 11, 2026. (Roberto Schmidt/AFP)
She added that Bondi has "a heart of gold."
Axios disclosed the health update while reporting that Bondi has been appointed by President Donald Trump to an advisory committee focused on artificial intelligence policy.
The White House confirmed to Fox News Digital that Bondi will serve on the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
"Pam has been an enormously valuable asset to the president's team, and I'm thrilled for her and for all of us that she's going to remain involved in confronting some of the most important issues the administration faces," Vice President JD Vance said in a statement.
AG PAM BONDI SUGGESTS TRUMP'S CRIME CRACKDOWN IN DC WILL HELP LATINO RESIDENTS
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 7, 2025. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
The council is co-chaired by White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks and White House science advisor Michael Kratsios.
Bondi will reportedly help facilitate coordination between the federal government and technology executives serving on the panel.
News of Bondi’s diagnosis and new advisory role comes weeks after Trump removed her as attorney general.
KARL ROVE: TRUMP DROPPED BONDI, BUT THE REAL POLITICAL FIGHT IS JUST BEGINNING
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche attends a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 19, 2025. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
In a Truth Social post announcing her departure, Trump described Bondi as "a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend."
"Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in Crime across our Country, with Murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900," Trump wrote. "We love Pam, and she will be transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector, to be announced at a date in the near future."
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has served as acting attorney general since Bondi’s departure.
BLANCHE INVOKES TRUMP ‘LOVE’ WHEN ASKED ABOUT STAYING ON AFTER BONDI
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks as President Donald Trump looks on during a news conference in the Oval Office of the White House on Oct. 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
In a post on X confirming her exit from the Justice Department, Bondi said she remains "eternally grateful for the trust that President Trump placed in me to Make America Safe Again."
"Over the next month I will be working tirelessly to transition the office of Attorney General to the amazing Todd Blanche before moving to an important private sector role I am thrilled about, and where I will continue fighting for President Trump and this Administration," Bondi wrote.
"Leading President Trump’s historic and highly successful efforts to make America safer and more secure has been the honor of a lifetime, and easily the most consequential first year of the Department of Justice in American history."
Judge Tosses Wolff Suit, Clearing Path For $1B Melania Claim
Wolff filed suit against Trump seeking to block her from suing him for $1 billion for alleged defamatory claims he made regarding her association with Jeffrey Epstein.
“It’s an inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship,” said Manhattan Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, an appointee of President Donald Trump.
Vyskocil said she would not be “drafted to oversee an abusively presented spat,” yet she recognized that both sides have a “real dispute.”
Last year, the first lady’s lawyer issued Wolff a letter demanding he delete the statements he made about Trump and threatening that she would have “no alternative” but to sue him if he didn’t.
That spurred him to sue her in state court in October.
Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, had the complaint moved to federal court, where Vyskocil declared that while federal court does have jurisdiction, she was declining to exercise it and “dismisses this case to be litigated like any other.”
A Melania Trump spokesperson said that the first lady “is proud to continue standing up to, and fighting against, those who spread malicious and defamatory falsehoods as they desperately try to get undeserved attention and money from their unlawful conduct.”
The 56-year-old’s lawyer previously claimed that Wolff’s statements caused her “overwhelming reputational and financial harm.”
The first lady has denied any association with Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of child sex trafficking.
“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” the first lady said in an April press conference.
“The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation,” she added at the time.
Wolff claimed in his lawsuit that the president and first lady “have made a practice of threatening those who speak against them” with costly legal actions “to silence their speech, to intimidate their critics generally, and to extract unjustified payments and North Korean-style confessions and apologies.”
He added that some of his statements were taken out of context and some were protected speech, including a statement he made that claimed the Trumps have a “sham marriage, trophy marriage,” that his lawsuit says was a “fair and justified” opinion.
It also said in his lawsuit that Wolff never accused the first lady of being involved with criminal activity associated with Epstein.
The Daily Beast retracted an article last summer, titled “Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author,” which was based on an interview with Wolff, after the outlet received a letter from Brito.
In the interview that formed the basis for the retracted piece, Wolff said he reported that the first lady was “behind the scenes” dealing with the situation at the White House, but was not involved criminally.
Republican Rep. Nancy Mace praised Melania Trump at the time for coming out against Epstein.
“Melania Trump stands with Epstein victims,” Mace said, citing the first lady’s advocacy for legislation addressing the distribution of fake intimate images. “The truth will prevail.”
Democratic lawmakers also commented following the statement.
Rep. Robert Garcia called for a public hearing, writing, “We agree with First Lady Melania Trump’s call for a public hearing,” Garcia said. “We encourage Chairman Comer to schedule a hearing immediately.”
Garcia said the remarks renewed attention on the broader investigation.
In her remarks, Melania Trump called on Congress to take action.
“Now is the time for Congress to act,” she said.
She urged lawmakers to allow victims to testify under oath.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
