Trump says giving EU until July 4 to fulfill trade deal or will raise tariffs

[underpants]

9. So is he ignoring/defying SCOTUS here or clinging to the BS Rule 122 opinion of his DOJ?

In a 6-3 ruling on February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of Donald Trump's trade tariffs, holding that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The Court ruled this was executive overreach, stating that the constitutional power to regulate commerce lies with Congress.

Administration Response: Following the ruling, the administration pivoted to alternate legal justifications, including imposing new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
—-

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 empowers the U.S. President to impose temporary, 150-day import restrictions—such as up to 15% tariffs or quotas—to address urgent balance-of-payments deficits, severe dollar depreciation, or international payments instability. Recently, it was invoked in February 2026 to apply 10% tariffs, following judicial limitations on alternative trade authorities.

——

Even the Cato Institute calls BS on Rule 122 saying it’s an anachronism

APRIL 14, 2026 1:57PM
Section 122 Is an Anachronism, Not a License for New Tariffs

The administration’s latest tariff move does not just rest on bad policy. It rests on a concept that no longer fits the world we live in. That is why I joined the economists’ amicus brief challenging the administration’s use of Section 122 in the US Court of International Trade, which can be found here. The core problem is simple: Section 122 was written for a monetary order that has passed. The administration is trying to revive it as if nothing important has changed in the international monetary system since the early 1970s.

https://www.cato.org/blog/section-122-anachronism-not-license-new-tariffs