Europe is taking a wait-and-see attitude regarding the challenge of its tariffs by the Supreme Court of , which directly concern itself as well.
It is recalled that in Wednesday’s session, both conservative and progressive justices strongly questioned the use of emergency powers by the US president – including the European Union.
officials and analysts on the other side of the Atlantic are well aware that if the court rules against the tariffs, Trump will try to find a way to roll them back.
The further uncertainties that may arise
“The power of the president is not limited,” German MEP Berd Lange, who chairs the European Parliament’s international trade committee, told Politico. “In the event of a suspension of tariffs, new legal bases will be sought, which will again entail significantly more effort and perhaps further uncertainties for certain product groups.”
Trump imposed his tariffs — including 15 percent on EU member states — under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 sanctions law that gives the president the power to “regulate” imports but does not specifically mention the possibility of tariffs.
A key question that arises is whether Trump, by imposing his “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, actually abused what the constitution says Congress has.
The impeachment of the president of the Supreme Court
During the hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts
Tariffs are a form of taxation, and “that’s always been the core power of Congress,” Roberts said. “So to have the president’s foreign affairs authority override the basic authority of Congress seems to me to sort of blur the distinction between the two branches, the executive and the legislative.”
In fact, the fact that the same skeptical attitude towards the legalization of the imposition of tariffs by the US president is shown by judges from both US political camps has caused a particular impression, which makes the scenario of the abolition of tariffs more likely. For that to happen, conservative Trump-appointed justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — must vote against them.
“Not only the Court’s liberal justices, but key conservative justices such as Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch and Cavanaugh advanced a deeply skeptical line of questioning,” said David Kleiman, senior researcher at think tank ODI Global.
The hearing, Kleimann said, “will certainly raise hopes among international stakeholders that the Court will overturn the tariff orders, which, however, will have to be seen to be believed.”
Solving a “Global Problem”
However, according to Politico, even if the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, Brussels will not be out of danger.
Trump’s tariffs on pharmaceuticals, autos and steel using other legal avenues — notably Section 232 on specific industrial sectors — are not the subject of the case before the Supreme Court. And it is these measures that are causing the greatest pain to European exporters.
Precisely because of this, former EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy warned his fellow Europeans “not to be too quick to rejoice”.
“If Trump loses this case, he’s going to use other legal grounds, even more complicated ones,” Lamy told Politico, referring to the sectoral tariffs.
“It would be great if the tariffs were overturned and they couldn’t roll them back, but we’re not counting on that,” said one EU trade diplomat, who chose to remain anonymous.
The Trump administration’s arguments
One argument the Trump administration has made is that the tariffs are necessary because America’s trade deficits with many of its trading partners are, in fact, a true emergency.
The government’s lawyer, Dean John Sauer, argued that the trade deficits the tariffs are intended to address are “a global problem”. The countries hit by the tariffs “have not disputed … that the president has correctly identified that almost every major trading partner has this longstanding, so disproportionate, unfair treatment of our trade.”
In the case of Europe, this is true: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen admitted, as she sealed the EU’s trade deal with Trump, that “it was really about rebalancing. So you can call it justice, you can call it rebalancing. We have a surplus, the US has a deficit and we have to rebalance it.”
Believing Trump’s narrative, von der Leyen gave his team a victory — allowing Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to brag about a new trade era, dubbed the “Turnberry system” after the Scottish golf course where Trump and von der Leyen shook hands on their deal in July.
How firm is a handshake?
For the EU, the question now is how solid a foundation it has built with the Turnberry deal. EU officials argue that the 15% tariff cap on most exports should be maintained even if the Supreme Court rejects Trump’s tariffs. A decision is expected by the end of this year, but could be made much sooner.
The European Commission declined to comment on legal proceedings in another country as a matter of policy. “But I can say that the Commission is focused on implementing the commitments set out in the EU-US joint statement,” its deputy chief spokesman, Olaf Gill, said on Thursday.
However, the court’s decision could have implications for the EU’s implementation of the agreement with Washington.
The European Parliament, which is called upon to ratify the agreement, has adopted a critical attitude towards it. Many lawmakers accuse the EU executive of agreeing to a humiliating one-sided deal, agreeing to remove all tariffs on US industrial goods.
A Supreme Court ruling striking down the US tariffs could galvanize the camp of lawmakers determined to vote against the process.
“It would be highly unlikely that the European Parliament would continue its work to reduce EU tariffs on US products if the Court declared the US tariffs illegal,” said Brando Benifay, a Spanish Socialist who chairs the Parliament’s body responsible for strengthening ties with the US.
“It would be absurd,” he concluded.
