Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling does not eliminate the possibility of large-scale tariffs reinstated by former President Trump, who may utilize various legal tools to re-establish a tariff system despite the ruling against the IEEPA-based tariffs [1] Group 1: Legal Tools for Tariffs - The most relied-upon tool during Trump's presidency was the Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs based on national security reasons without limits on rates or duration [2] - Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 enables the U.S. Trade Representative to impose tariffs on countries deemed discriminatory against U.S. businesses, which Trump used to initiate trade tensions with China [3] - Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows for tariffs up to 15% for significant international balance of payments deficits, but has never been utilized and is limited to 150 days [5] - Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits tariffs when increased imports threaten U.S. manufacturers, requiring an investigation and public hearings, with a maximum tariff of 50% [6] - The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act's Section 338 allows for tariffs up to 50% without prior investigation, but has not been used and may face legal challenges if invoked [7] Group 2: Implications of the Ruling - The Supreme Court's decision undermines Trump's core economic policy but does not end the overall tariff policy, as he can still leverage other legal authorities to impose tariffs [1] - Experts suggest that it is challenging to foresee a path to the end of tariffs, indicating that Trump can utilize alternative authorizations to reconstruct the existing tariff framework [1][2]