The Conversation has commentary from faculty outside of law schools on the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources that struck down the Trump Administration’s IEEPA tariffs. Five post-decision articles for a popular audience, including four perspectives from non-U.S. scholars, below the fold.

Renaud Foucart (Lancaster U.), The Supreme Court Has Curbed Trump’s Ability to Bully His Allies. But Tariffs Were Never Going to End the US Trade Deficit, The Conversation (Feb. 24, 2026):

[Trump] may no longer be able to act on the stroke of a pen, and could be forced to tax all trading partners at a similar rate.

This is undoubtedly great news for countries like Canada, which chose not to bow down to threats, or China, which managed to bring Trump to the negotiating table by systematically retaliating against his threats.

In contrast, the European Union agreed to a deal allowing the US to tax EU imports but not the other way around. As the UK exports far fewer goods to the US than the EU does, it accepted a slightly preferential deal. But pledges to invest billions in the UK as part of the package were cancelled just days after they were announced.

The short-term benefits of signing those asymmetric deals were obvious—after all, no one wins a trade war and tariffs are mostly a tax on the consumers of the importing country. But the long-term reputational costs will be much harder to manage. In an increasingly multipolar and uncertain world, European nations have sent a clear message that they are easy to manipulate with a bit of projected strength.

Steve Schifferes (U. London), The Supreme Court’s Ruling Leaves Trumponomics Facing Major Challenges, The Conversation (Feb. 24, 2026):

Trump’s first move following the ruling has been to impose a 15% tariff on all imports. Imposed under a little-used law, the tariff rate is fixed and time-limited to 150 days before needing congressional approval. It would take only a few Republicans to block its extension. And the midterm elections are looming.

Using a flat-rate tariff means that some countries that settled earlier and got a better deal—including the UK—are now worse off, while others that had a higher tariff rate imposed on them have, at least for now, benefited. It also could mean that those that pledged to invest hundreds of billions in the US economy—including Japan and the EU—may now question whether their commitment still stands.

Charles Conteh (Brock U., Dept. Pol. Sci.), 3 Ways Canada Can Navigate an Increasingly Erratic and Belligerent United States, The Conversation (Feb. 22, 2026):

Over the past two centuries, Canada has mastered the complex dance of asymmetry [with the United States]. However, the current crisis takes on an existential proportion that will require new agility, courage and decisiveness. It is an inflection point that will mark a consequential shift for the next generation.

Canada’s nimbleness and agility in navigating this political moment could be an model for other countries that must manoeuvre a world where the old rules no longer apply. It can serve as an example for small and middle powers who must navigate a world where great powers are increasingly belligerent.

Felicity Deane (Queensland U. Tech.), Trump Hikes Global Tariffs to 15% as the Fallout from Supreme Court Loss Continues, The Conversation (Feb. 21, 2026):

The new 15% rate is an increase on the 10% global baseline tariff enacted shortly after the ruling using a different law, and will hit some Australian exports.

This part of the law has never been used. However, it appears to clearly allow the president to impose tariffs of up to 15%, and for a period of no more than 150 days.

Kent Jones (Babson C., Dept. Econ.), Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Emergency Tariffs—But Leaves Key Questions Unanswered, The Conversation (Feb. 20, 2026):

Trump has often used or threatened to use International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs for political reasons, including against Brazil over its prosecution of a former president, Mexico over immigration and Canada over its plans to sign a trade deal with China, and other reasons.

The Supreme Court decision will make it more difficult for Trump to use tariffs and tariff threats in that way. One outcome is that constitutional limits the justices set on presidential tariff-making powers should constrain the justification of tariffs for political reasons.