Export consultant Jule Balzano is advising her recreational marine industry clients not to overreact to developments that include President Donald Trump declaring that he will impose new tariffs to replace the ones that the Supreme Court struck down Friday.
“This is likely not the end of tariffs,” Balzano told Trade Only Today. “It looks more like a change in legal strategy and timing. So I am advising them to move carefully with pricing and avoid big swings until we have more clarity.”
The president said Saturday that he will increase to 15% the new 10% global tariff he had announced Friday at a press conference where he expressed anger and frustration about the high court’s ruling against him.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices said Trump did not have the authority he had claimed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977 to levy tariffs at will that ranged from 10% to 50% on countries around the world.
The new 15% tariff Trump talked about will be imposed under what is known as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Under that law, the president can impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days. After that, he will need approval from Congress to continue them.
Trump also said during the press conference that he will begin investigations under another section of the 1974 law and a section of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 that could give him the authority to impose still more tariffs on a wide range of companies and products, largely replacing the ones the court struck down.
Developments such as those are why Balzano, founder and principal consultant at Florida-registered Global Connect Marketing Services, said her reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision is “cautious relief paired with renewed uncertainty.”
“I was not shocked by the decision, as many of us knew the legal ground was shaky,” she said. “The court made it clear that broad tariffs cannot be created under emergency powers.
“For businesses, clarity is important, yet we have not had much stability in trade policy recently,” she added. “In our industry, businesses often deal with long lead times and global supply chains. Builders lock in component orders far in advance, and dealers stock inventory based on project pricing. And customers place deposits expecting stability. So while the court clarified the limits of the specific statute, the president has already announced plans to pursue tariffs under other sections of existing trade law. We still don’t know what comes next. The uncertainty is draining and ultimately may affect sales.”
Trade expert Tamara Kay told Trade Only Today that the Trump administration “lacks a real tariff strategy.”
“Rather, the seemingly impulsive and ill-conceived decisions about tariffs change on a whim, which ultimately creates uncertainty for importers, exporters and consumers,” said Kay, Andrew W. Mellon chair and professor of sociology at the University of Pittsburgh and a former professor of global affairs and sociology at Notre Dame. “It is therefore difficult for affected companies to gauge what will happen next and to make decisions based on a predictable and stable tariff policy.”
Like Balzano, Kay said she expected the Supreme Court to rule against the tariffs.
“Given the relevant economic indicators — slowdown in GDP growth and consumer spending, slow pace of employment growth and continued inflation — I was not surprised that SCOTUS ruled against the tariffs,” she said. “It leaves importers and exporters in limbo because the court did not specifically outline if and how the U.S. government would return billions to companies that paid the tariffs.”
The now-illegal tariffs are worth an estimated $175 billion, and importers had filed more than 1,000 lawsuits at the U.S. Court of International Trade seeking refunds before the high court even rendered its decision. Many more are expected now from boating businesses and other companies across a wide range of industries.
The Trump administration could make the process easier by agreeing to make automatic repayments, but it may not do so. Trump, expressing frustration Friday that the high court did not address repayments, told reporters that the government “could end up being in court for the next five years.”
Balzano said marine businesses should be prepared to engage with whatever process is developed to pursue refunds. “Right now, the advice is not to rush, but not to ignore it, either,” she said. “Be prepared. Stay informed. And be ready to act when a process is defined.
“The court did not establish a refund process or timeline,” she added. “Any mechanism will likely involve further legal steps. So at this point it is not possible to tell companies exactly how to proceed, other than they can gather documentation and make sure all entry records, duty payments, etc., are organized. Then, when and if a clear refund pathway opens, the companies that are organized can move faster.”
The National Marine Manufacturers Association acknowledged in a press release that “uncertainty remains” about how tariff revenue that was improperly collected under the 1977 emergency law will be refunded and that the high court’s decision sends the case back to the Court of International Trade to oversee the next steps.
“We are closely watching how the court’s ruling will be implemented and its impact on U.S. tariff and trade policy over the coming weeks and months,” NMMA president and CEO Frank Hugelmeyer said in the statement.
“Approximately 95% of the boats sold in this country are made right here in America. Boat manufacturers contribute $230 billion to the U.S. economy and support more than 800,000 American jobs, many in small communities. Their continued success depends on stable access to global markets and a trade policy framework that is predictable and strategic. As we approach the nation’s 250th anniversary, we urge the administration and Congress to advance policies that strengthen legacy American industries like recreational boat manufacturing.”
