A landmark case before the US Supreme Court this week could reshape global trade policy (and SA’s export prospects) by ruling on whether presidents can impose sweeping tariffs under emergency powers without Congressional approval.
At the centre of the case is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute originally designed to allow presidents to act swiftly in times of genuine international crisis. US President Donald Trump has used the law to justify a series of import tariffs — including a 30% levy on SA goods — by declaring what economists call questionable “emergencies”.
Trump has defended the tariffs as essential to American sovereignty and national security, writing on Truth Social that the case is “life or death for our country”. In a CBS interview, he warned that a loss would mean “our economy will go to hell”.
But the case reaches far beyond trade. “The question is really about how far democracy goes,” said Dawie Roodt, chief economist at the Efficient Group.
“What happens if he starts behaving like a king instead of a president? It’s a philosophical question about limitations,” he said.
Roodt believes the case is a “political and democratic test”.
At issue is whether the president may impose tariffs unilaterally — bypassing Congress, which the US constitution grants primary authority over taxation and trade. While Congress originally passed IEEPA to enable emergency financial sanctions, Trump is the first president to use it to impose import duties.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling (expected in weeks or months) will decide whether this use of IEEPA is legal. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, a group of American small businesses and states, it could effectively invalidate the legal basis for Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, potentially offering relief to trading partners such as SA.
If the court upholds Trump’s interpretation, it would set a precedent allowing future presidents to impose unilateral trade measures with minimal oversight.
“The upcoming Supreme Court outcome could retroactively affect the enforceability of those IEEPA-based tariffs and potentially trigger refund eligibility for affected importers,” said Lisette IJssel de Schepper, chief economist at the Bureau for Economic Research (BER), adding that “companies in some industries may be entitled to reclaim duties paid since February 2025”.
However, she cautioned that even if refunds were legally justified, they were likely to face long delays due to verification and administrative bottlenecks. Moreover, foreign producers who slashed prices to stay competitive under Trump’s tariffs were unlikely to recover any of those losses — even if importers werereimbursed.
SA, which currently faces the 30% general tariff, could benefit from its removal. But IJssel de Schepper said that sector-specific tariffs (including 25% on vehicle parts and 50% on aluminium) were expected to remain in place, as they were imposed outside of IEEPA. Yet, she noted that the use of sector bans was likely to increase if reciprocal tariffs could no longer be used.
“The only limited advantage of these sectoral tariffs is their uniformity and competitiveness implications: all countries without a preferential deal face the same barrier,” she said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.