The "Hole Through the Fence" (Not the Obstacle)

This ruling is narrow—it only closes one door (IEEPA as a blank-check tariff tool). It does not ban tariffs or cripple trade policy. Here's the clear path forward:

Other statutes remain fully available (explicitly noted in the opinion as unaffected):

Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962) — national security tariffs (used successfully before on steel/aluminum).

Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974) — unfair trade practices (China IP, subsidies).

Section 201 safeguards, antidumping/countervailing duties (ITA processes), etc.

These have survived judicial review precisely because Congress spoke clearly.

Congress can (and often does) legislate new authority — The decision actually strengthens the case for bipartisan tariff legislation if needed, putting the power back where the Constitution places it.

Negotiated deals & exemptions — The opinion highlights that many of the challenged tariffs were already being adjusted downward via agreements (UK, Japan, China commitments). Diplomacy + targeted tools = continued leverage without IEEPA overreach.

Emergency declarations still work for non-tariff tools — Sanctions, blocks, asset freezes, quotas—all untouched.

In short: The Court said "not this statute, not this way." It did not say "no tariffs ever." The fence has a wide-open gate labeled "Use the statutes Congress actually wrote for tariffs" or "Get Congress to pass clearer authority." This is a procedural and textual guardrail, not a substantive blockade.

The decision reinforces constitutional structure while leaving the executive toolkit intact for legitimate trade enforcement. Game on—different tools, same goals achievable.