Trump will find another way to impose tariffs even if Supreme Court rules against him, expert says

Jeremy Paul, professor of constitutional law, says the timing of the ruling offers no clue to how the court will decide.

The recent delay by the U.S. Supreme Court on the ruling of whether U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs are legal offers no clue on the potential outcome, according to one expert.

Jeremy Paul, an American professor of constitutional law, says the Supreme Court follows its own path on this type of decision, except in rare circumstances when it makes an exception.

“This is a very complicated case because it involves both the question of were the tariffs legal, and then if they were not legal, what should be done about it,” he told CTV’s News Channel on Saturday.

Paul explained that Trump argues that a statute passed by Congress, known as the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, entitled him to impose the tariffs.

The case before the Supreme court is about whether that statute allows him to do so.

READ MORE: Here’s how the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s emergency tariff powers could affect Canada

“The statute gives him the power, first of all, to declare an emergency, and then secondly to regulate the importation of goods,” Paul said.

The emergencies in question are based on alleged drug trafficking into the U.S. from Canada, Mexico and China, and trade imbalances, he said.

Paul described the claims of emergencies as “flimsy,” but admitted that the courts are reluctant to tell the U.S. president what constitutes as an emergency.

In August, a lower court found that the power to regulate the importation of goods didn’t include the power to impose a tariff, which is why the case has since landed in the Supreme Court.

Their job now is to decide whether regulation is the same thing as a tariff.

READ MORE: Global companies that have sued the U.S. government for tariff refunds

Paul said he’d be “shocked” if the court has the confidence to come up with a unanimous ruling against Trump.

“This court has deferred to our (U.S.) president over and over and over again,” he said. “But I would not be surprised if they tried to figure out some way to signal that what happened here was not technically legal.”

Paul added that if the Supreme Court rules that the tariffs are illegal, it will stop them in the future, but it likely won’t order them to be recollected.

In terms of a fallout, Paul said that even if the court rules that the tariffs are illegal, all that will be decided is that tariffs under that statute are not legal.

Paul said that is part of Trump’s overall economic policy strategy. It helps raise revenue for the U.S. federal treasury, which is needed, because of the massive tax cuts for wealthy Americans in a recent statute that was passed by Congress.

READ MORE: ‘The year that the shoe dropped’: How the Canada-U.S. relationship changed in 2025

And while it’s not entirely clear where the money will be allotted to, it gives Trump a type of “slush fund” to spend the way he wants.

“I think that even if the court rules against (Trump), he’ll find another way to impose tariffs,” Paul said.

Trump’s tariffs — which don’t apply to goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, known as CUSMA — hit Canada last March.

They were boosted to 35 per cent in August as Trump complained about Canada’s retaliatory tariffs and supply management in the dairy sector, and claimed Ottawa hadn’t done enough to stop the very modest cross-border flow of fentanyl.

The U.S. president’s separate Section 232 tariffs on specific industries, such as steel, aluminum, automobiles, copper and lumber, have also hit Canada hard.

With files from the Canadian Press.