There’s a law on the books that’s been sitting untouched since Gerald Ford signed it in 1974. Fifty-two years. No president has ever invoked it. It’s been gathering dust in the U.S. Code like a fire extinguisher behind glass — there for emergencies, never needed, almost forgotten.

Until Friday.

The Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs under IEEPA in a 6-3 ruling. By the end of the day, Trump had smashed the glass, grabbed Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and imposed a 10% worldwide tariff. By Saturday morning, he’d raised it to 15% — the statutory maximum.

First president in history to use the law. And he didn’t just use it. He maxed it out.

The 52-Year-Old Backup Plan

Section 122 was written for exactly the situation Trump described in his proclamation: “a large and serious balance-of-payments deficit.” It gives the president authority to impose temporary ad valorem duties — up to 15% — on imports for 150 days without congressional approval.

One hundred and fifty days. That’s the clock. After that, Congress either extends the tariffs or they expire. Trump now has five months to either negotiate new trade deals, get Congress to authorize permanent tariff authority, or find yet another legal mechanism to keep the rates in place.

But 150 days is an eternity in trade negotiations. Countries that were celebrating the Supreme Court ruling on Friday are waking up Monday to tariff rates that are actually higher than they were before the court intervened. The IEEPA effective rate, according to Breitbart economics editor John Carney’s analysis, was approximately 12% after exemptions and carve-outs. The new Section 122 rate is 15%. Flat. Worldwide.

The court killed the tariffs and the tariffs got bigger. That’s not a legal defeat. That’s a legal redirect with a surcharge.

The Betrayal Vote

The 6-3 ruling that triggered all of this deserves attention — not for the legal reasoning, but for who lined up where.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by the court’s three liberal justices — Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. No surprise there. But he was also joined by Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — both Trump appointees from his first term.

Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented. The court’s three most reliable conservatives sided with the president. The two Trump appointees who joined the liberals did so on a case that strikes at the core of Trump’s economic agenda.

Trump didn’t mince words: “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

That’s a president publicly rebuking justices he nominated. It’s a breach of the traditional deference presidents show the court. It’s also exactly what Trump’s base expects — a leader who doesn’t pretend a bad ruling is acceptable just because it came from judges he appointed.

The political fallout will linger. Barrett and Gorsuch will carry this vote for the rest of their careers. And the next time a Supreme Court vacancy opens, the vetting process will include one additional question: will you actually defend the agenda you were nominated to protect?

The Speed That Tells the Story

The most revealing detail isn’t what Trump did. It’s how fast he did it. The Supreme Court ruling came down Friday. The Section 122 proclamation was issued Friday afternoon. The rate increase to 15% was announced Saturday morning.

That timeline doesn’t happen by accident. Trump’s legal team had Section 122 ready to go before the ruling was issued. They anticipated the IEEPA decision, identified the backup authority, drafted the executive order, and had it staged for immediate deployment.

This is the legal equivalent of losing your front door key and pulling a spare from under the mat before the locksmith even picks up the phone. The court thought it was delivering a decisive blow. It was delivering a speed bump.

Alan Dershowitz, the famed constitutional lawyer, said Trump’s legal team made the “wrong argument” in the IEEPA case — suggesting the outcome might have been different with a different litigation strategy. Whether that’s true or not, the practical result is the same: the tariffs survived, the rates went up, and the legal basis shifted to ground that may be harder to challenge.

The 150-Day Gambit

The Section 122 clock creates urgency — but it creates urgency for everyone, not just Trump. Foreign governments now have 150 days to negotiate before the tariff framework potentially changes again. Congress has 150 days to either codify the tariffs or let them expire. And the court — if opponents challenge Section 122 — has 150 days to rule before the question becomes moot.

Trump’s proclamation said his administration “will determine and issue the new and legally permissible tariffs” in the coming months. That language signals that Section 122 is a bridge, not a destination. The 15% rate holds the line while the administration builds a more permanent tariff structure — one that’s been pressure-tested against the court’s IEEPA ruling and designed to survive the next legal challenge.

The countries being tariffed don’t get to wait and see. They’re paying 15% starting now. Every container ship, every import, every trade balance calculation just changed. And the 150-day window means there’s a deadline — which means there’s leverage.

Trump has always been a dealmaker who operates on deadlines. He just created one that applies to the entire world.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court ruled against Trump on tariffs. Within 24 hours, the tariffs were higher, the legal basis was different, and the president had invoked a law that no president in 52 years had ever touched.

The court won a legal argument. Trump won the trade war. And the countries that were counting on six justices to save them from American tariff policy just learned that the American president has more than one card to play.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Fifty-two years old. Never used. Now the most important trade law in America.

Gerald Ford probably didn’t see this coming. But Donald Trump did.