States led by New York expected to sue to block Trump’s latest tariffs, calling them an illegal end-run around Supreme Court

States led by New York are expected to sue to block President Donald Trump's latest tariffs, which they argue are an illegal end-run around a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that deemed his previous tariffs unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Trump does not have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, marking a significant setback for his protectionist trade strategy. Following this ruling, U.S. stocks experienced a rally, indicating a positive market reaction to the decision (Reuters, The Straits Times). In response to the Supreme Court's ruling, President Trump invoked Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 to impose a new 15 percent global tariff, which is set to take effect for 150 days. This has created ambiguity regarding the status of U.S. tariff rates, with unclear specifics about which goods will be taxed and at what rates. The uncertainty has raised concerns among various stakeholders, including lawmakers and international trade partners (South China Morning Post, Reuters). China has called on the U.S. to cancel its unilateral tariff measures, stating that there are no winners in a trade war and that protectionism leads nowhere. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce confirmed that it is reviewing its trade countermeasures against the United States and is preparing for a new round of high-level trade talks (South China Morning Post). Additionally, the European Union has postponed a vote on a trade deal with the U.S. due to the uncertainty surrounding the tariffs (Reuters). The Supreme Court's ruling has thrown the Trump administration's tariff strategy into flux, potentially straining global trade relations and prompting businesses to operate more cautiously, which could adversely affect the U.S. economy. Taiwan has also sought clarification from Washington regarding the implications of the ruling for its trade outlook (South China Morning Post, The Straits Times). Overall, the situation remains fluid as various stakeholders navigate the implications of the recent legal and policy changes.