President Donald Trump scored a significant win on Thursday after a federal appeals court reinstated his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs.

However, with the legal battle likely to reach the Supreme Court, the White House claims it will fight back on multiple fronts to ensure the trade policy remains in effect.

Recommended Stories

• White House calls on Jill Biden to speak out about husband's health 'cover-up'
• Court-martialed Army officer 'humbled' by pardon from Trump
• Trump and Powell meet in White House as Fed faces pressure to lower rates

The court drama began on Wednesday when the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked Trump’s tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

A second judge ruled against Trump on Thursday, claiming that the tariffs enacted under the IEEP were unlawful.

“The International Economic Emergency Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose the tariffs set forth,” wrote D.C. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras.

The Trump administration moved quickly to appeal the Court of International Trade’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which resulted in a victory on Thursday afternoon.

If the rulings had not been reinstated, it would have halted Trump’s 10% baseline tariffs on most foreign trade partners, the 25% levy on Canada and Mexico, and a 20% tariff on China.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the rulings as the actions of “activist judges” during a Thursday press briefing and claimed that the administration has other “authorities” to implement the tariffs.

“The president’s trade policy will continue,” said Leavitt. “We will comply with the court orders, but yes, the president has other legal authorities where he can implement tariffs.”

“However, it does not dispute the fact that the president was right to declare a national emergency when it came to fentanyl and when also when it came to our crippling deficits and the lack of critical supply chains here at home,” said Leavitt. “That is the reasoning for the president’s tariffs. The court didn’t dispute those facts, by the way.”

Leavitt stressed that ultimately, the high court “must put an end” to the legal drama over the tariffs “for the sake of our Constitution and our country.”

The rulings initially presented a “setback” for the administration’s tariff agenda and increased “uncertainty,” per Goldman Sachs Economic Research. It added that they “might not change the final outcome for most major U.S. trading partners.”

According to an analysis from the investment bank giant, the White House still has four other major legal tools at its disposal to impose Trump’s wide-ranging tariffs, ranging from temporary options that would eventually require congressional approval to more permanent solutions that would not.

Trump’s Section 232 sectoral tariffs of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which are used for steel, aluminum, and automobiles, could be expanded to other industries to take the emphasis off country-focused duties.

Leavitt specifically mentioned Section 232 as one avenue the White House was considering during the briefing.

“The president reserves other tariff authorities, section 232, for example, to ensure that America’s interests are being restored around the world,” she said when asked about Trump’s relationship with other world leaders after the rulings.

Trump could replace the 10% across-the-board tariff with a similar one of up to 15% under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That would require congressional approval to last more than 150 days, but it’s unclear if those tariffs could be ended and then quickly restarted to reset the clock.

U.S. Trade Rep. Jamieson Greer could use Section 301 of the same law to launch investigations into trade partners, actions that would lay the groundwork for permanent tariffs. However, the inquiries could take months to complete.

Lastly, Trump could tap into a never-before-used authority under Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930 to impose up to 50% tariffs on countries deemed discriminatory toward the United States. Although similar to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, it would notably not need an investigation.

COURT BLOCKS ‘LIBERATION DAY’ TARIFFS, TRUMP APPEALS

Whatever route the White House takes, it remains confident that Trump’s wishes will be implemented.

“We will win this battle in court. And the president will implement his America First trade policies,” Leavitt said.