White House Readies Legal Workarounds In Case Supreme Court Overturns Trump’s Emergency Tariffs

The White House is preparing alternative legal avenues to preserve President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime if the Supreme Court ultimately rules against the administration’s use of emergency powers, according to National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett.

Speaking Friday on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street, Hassett said senior administration officials have already convened to plan for a potential adverse ruling on the president’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs.

“There was a big call last night with all the principals to talk about if the Supreme Court were to rule against this IEEPA tariff, what would the next step be?” Hassett said.

The IEEPA, traditionally used to impose sanctions during national emergencies, has become the legal foundation for Trump’s tariff actions, allowing the White House to move rapidly without congressional approval. That aggressive interpretation has drawn legal challenges from businesses, trade groups, and importers, who argue the statute was never intended to authorize broad trade levies.

Hassett said the administration remains confident it will prevail but made clear that a loss would not derail its trade agenda.

“There are a lot of other legal authorities that can reproduce the deals that we’ve made with other countries, and can do so basically immediately,” he said. “And so our expectation is that we’re going to win, and if we don’t win, then we know that we’ve got other tools that we could use that get us to the same place.”

His remarks suggest the White House views the tariffs less as a single legal mechanism and more as a strategic outcome that can be achieved through multiple statutes. Trade lawyers say those alternatives could include existing trade laws that allow duties in response to unfair practices or threats to national security, though such routes often involve longer investigations and more procedural hurdles.

Hassett said U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has been deeply involved in preparing contingency plans, highlighting the degree of coordination across the administration’s economic and trade teams.

The Supreme Court’s first decision day of 2026 passed on Friday without a ruling on the tariff case, prolonging uncertainty for markets, companies, and U.S. trading partners. The case is closely watched because it could set lasting limits on presidential authority over trade, especially the use of emergency powers to bypass Congress.

Trump’s tariff policy has already reshaped global trade flows, triggering renegotiations with multiple countries and influencing corporate investment decisions. Supporters within the administration argue the approach has strengthened U.S. leverage and helped secure more favorable terms, while critics warn it raises costs for consumers and exposes the economy to retaliation.

The legal fight comes as Trump continues to frame economic policy through a national security lens, tying trade enforcement to domestic manufacturing, supply chain resilience, and geopolitical competition. A Supreme Court ruling against the IEEPA tariffs would represent one of the most significant judicial checks on that approach to date.

Hassett’s comments also arrive amid growing attention on his own political trajectory. He is widely viewed as one of the leading contenders to succeed Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve chair, with Powell’s term set to expire in May. Asked about the prospect, Hassett struck a cautious note.

“I’m really happy with the job I have here,” he said. “We’ll see what the president thinks about where I should be.”

The White House is signaling that, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, Trump’s tariff strategy is unlikely to be abandoned. Instead, officials are positioning the administration to pivot quickly, ensuring that trade pressure remains a central tool of U.S. economic policy amid legal and political battles.