The fate of President Trump's tariffs remains uncertain.

VTV.vn - There had been much speculation that the ruling on tariffs would be announced on January 9th.

Đài truyền hình Việt Nam•10/01/2026

The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on January 9th on the legality of the broad tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, leaving markets awaiting a decision that is expected to have far-reaching implications for U.S. trade policy and fiscal situation.

There had been much speculation that a ruling on tariffs would be issued on January 9th, but the Supreme Court only released an opinion that day, and its content was unrelated to tariffs.

It remains unclear when the ruling on the tariffs will be issued. The court is expected to announce further rulings on January 13th.

When announced, this decision will address two issues: whether the administration can use provisions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, and if that is not appropriate, whether the U.S. will have to reimburse import tariffs already paid by importers.

However, according to CNBC, the final ruling could also lie in some middle ground. The court could choose to grant limited authority under the IEEPA and only order limited repayments, among other options for handling a sensitive issue that Wall Street is closely watching.

Furthermore, even if the White House loses the case, they still have other tools to implement tariffs without resorting to the emergency powers invoked under this law. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on January 8 that he himself anticipated a “mixed” ruling.

President Trump used IEEPA in part as an emergency measure to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

According to Jose Torres, chief economist at Interactive Brokers, the loss of tariffs would have multiple consequences. If the courts block the tariffs, the administration will seek ways to circumvent the law. President Trump is determined to push this agenda despite the potential controversy surrounding such a decision. Blocking tariffs would be detrimental to ambitions to bring manufacturing back domestically. It would also be bad for the fiscal situation, with interest rates rising higher. But it would benefit corporate profits. Input costs would be lower and trade would flow more smoothly.

Government officials have outlined various options for compensation if the court ruling is not in their favor. Market forecaster Kalshi suggests there is only a 28% chance the court will rule in favor of the current tariff levels. Torres says his company's clients have similar expectations.

Secretary Bessent said the administration has at least three other options through the Trade Act of 1962 to retain most of the tariffs. However, he also expressed concern that reimbursing the tariffs could put pressure on the administration and its efforts to reduce the fiscal deficit. According to U.S. Treasury data, tariffs have brought in approximately $195 billion in fiscal year 2025 and an additional $62 billion in 2026.

Ultimately, Morgan Stanley analysts believe there remains “considerable room for nuanced interpretations” in the Supreme Court ruling. Morgan Stanley analysts Ariana Salvatore and Bradley Tian wrote in a report that the court has considerable freedom in its rulings, therefore many different scenarios are possible, such as narrowing the scope of existing tariffs but not forcing their complete removal, or limiting the application of tariffs in the future.

The two analysts added: “We believe the administration could still adopt a more lenient approach to the overall tariff regime, especially given the recent political focus on affordability.”

The impact of tariffs so far has defied analysts' predictions: inflation has been only minimally affected, while the trade deficit has fallen sharply, contrary to expectations from some that tariffs could isolate the U.S. on the global trade stage. The trade deficit in October hit its lowest level since the end of the 2009 financial crisis, when imports plummeted due to the severe recession that the crisis triggered.

The Peterson Institute for International Economics recently published a commentary stating that a procedural ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court just before Christmas in the case between President Donald Trump and the state of Illinois is being seen by observers as a "sign" that the court may not side with the Trump administration in cases related to "reciprocal" tariffs.

In this case, the court voted 6-3 to uphold the order preventing the federal government from deploying the Illinois National Guard in Chicago, arguing that the President had not met the necessary legal requirements under the law.

The ruling centered on limiting the president's power as defined by law. The court argued that the law in question only allowed for the federalization of the National Guard under very narrow circumstances, particularly when the president "cannot use standing forces to enforce the law," which the administration failed to demonstrate. This precise interpretation shows that the court did not accept an expansion of executive authority beyond the language and purpose of the law.

According to the author, this legal logic has many similarities to the "reciprocal" tariff lawsuits that President Trump imposed based on the IEEPA Act. In both cases, the president is accused of claiming almost unlimited power, encroaching on the authority granted to other entities by the Constitution – in the case of the National Guard, the authority of the states, and in the case of the tariffs, the authority to impose taxes which belongs to Congress.

The article argues that IEEPA, which is essentially a law on sanctions in extraordinary foreign emergency situations, does not address tariffs as a general tool for managing trade or generating revenue. Using IEEPA to impose broad tariffs is seen as circumventing established legal frameworks designed by Congress, such as national security laws or laws against unfair trade practices.

The article concludes that the Illinois ruling may signal a shift in the Supreme Court's stance, reaffirming the principle of a balance of power between the branches of government. If this argument is consistently applied, the court is likely to tighten the limits of executive power, thereby placing the future of President Trump's tariff measures at significant legal risk.

Source: https://vtv.vn/so-phan-thue-quan-cua-tong-thong-trump-van-bo-ngo-100260110080124479.htm