A turning point for global trade: Supreme Court limits tariff powers in the United States

On 20 February 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, by 6 votes to 3, that the use of the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) does not constitute a sufficient legal basis for the Executive to impose tariffs unilaterally and that this power resides in the U.S. Congress. This establishes a relevant precedent regarding presidential powers in the U.S.

Key points

• The decision confirms that the imposition of tariffs is an attribution that corresponds to Congress.
• The ruling will have operational and regulatory implications that still depend on official guidelines from U.S. authorities.
• Areas of uncertainty persist regarding procedures and effects for companies involved in customs operations, and as to whether this will lead to refunds of taxes paid under IEEPA.
• The United States government has indicated it could use other legal mechanisms to maintain President Trump’s tariff policy, such as the use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to establish a new 10% tariff on all goods imported into the U.S.
• On the other hand, new product-specific investigations could be initiated under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Affected provisions

• IEEPA related to the “Emergency on the northern and southern borders due to human trafficking and illicit drugs”: 25% on most imports from Canada and Mexico, and 10% on most imports from China.
• IEEPA related to “Reciprocal tariffs due to trade deficit”: A general tariff of at least 10% on imports from all trading partners, with higher rates for various countries.

It is important to make clear that the provisions under Sections 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 were not affected and will remain in force, impacting, for example, goods such as steel, aluminium, and the automotive industry respectively.

A formal communication from CBP and other U.S. authorities is still awaited regarding the practical implementation of the Supreme Court’s ruling and whether this situation will mean that U.S. companies may request the refund of tariffs previously paid. Therefore, it is important to remain attentive to communications from U.S. authorities.

Contact us for more information and to analyse possible specific implications for your customs operations.

References:

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion (February 20, 2026) Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 (on writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit), together with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., No. 25-250 (on writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) (S. Ct. February 20, 2026).