Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs, Administration Signals New Trade Measures

The United States Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling that significantly reshapes the current tariff landscape. In a 6 to 3 decision, the Court determined that the President did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, to impose the sweeping global tariffs that had been in place since April of last year. The ruling effectively invalidates the foundation of a central pillar of the administration’s trade policy and introduces a new phase of legal, economic, and operational recalibration across the global supply chain.

The tariffs implemented under IEEPA ranged from 10 percent to as high as 50 percent depending on the country of origin, though most fell at or below 15 percent. These measures were introduced under the premise of national emergency authority and were positioned as a tool to address trade imbalances and strategic economic concerns. Since their implementation, they have materially affected importers, manufacturers, retailers, and logistics providers, increasing landed costs and introducing significant uncertainty into procurement and pricing models.

The Supreme Court’s ruling makes clear that tariff authority rests primarily with Congress, and that the statutory language of IEEPA does not grant the executive branch broad authority to rewrite the Harmonized Tariff Schedule based on trade deficit concerns. In practical terms, this ruling removes the legal basis for the tariffs imposed under that statute.

However, the decision does not end the tariff discussion. In fact, it marks the beginning of a new chapter.

Within hours of the ruling, the administration announced it would pursue alternative mechanisms to maintain tariff pressure. Specifically, the President indicated that a 10 percent global tariff would be implemented under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 122 allows the executive branch to impose temporary import surcharges, quotas, or a combination of both to address large and serious balance of payments deficits. Unlike IEEPA-based tariffs, actions under Section 122 are explicitly limited to 150 days unless extended under controversial circumstances.

In addition to Section 122, the administration signaled that it may initiate investigations under Section 301, which addresses unfair trade practices and can result in longer-term tariffs following a formal investigative process by the Office of the United States Trade Representative. The possibility of expanded Section 232 actions, related to national security concerns, also remains on the table.

From a legal standpoint, the shift from IEEPA to Section 122 and potentially Section 301 introduces a more traditional trade enforcement framework. From an operational standpoint, however, the immediate impact is continued volatility.

Immediate Implications for Importers

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, U.S. businesses are not seeing an immediate halt to tariff payments. Trade specialists indicate that it may take days or weeks before Customs and Border Protection formally communicates that the IEEPA-based tariffs are no longer in force. In parallel, lower courts are expected to determine the mechanism by which refunds will be processed.

The scale of potential refunds is substantial. Over the past nine months, importers have paid hundreds of billions of dollars in duties under the invalidated authority. The refund process will likely require detailed entry-level filings. Each customs entry may need to be individually reviewed and claimed. For companies with high import volumes, this represents a significant administrative burden.

Trade professionals expect that Customs and Border Protection will need to either automate large portions of the process or significantly expand administrative capacity to handle the anticipated wave of claims. Without automation, the manpower requirements would be enormous on both the government and private sector sides.

The complexity is compounded by the fact that many importers have already passed a significant portion of tariff costs downstream. According to research published by the New York Federal Reserve, approximately 90 percent of the added tariff costs were ultimately passed on to consumers and businesses. This raises secondary questions about how refunds will flow through contractual relationships and whether adjustments will be made to pricing structures.

Market Reaction and Economic Signals

Financial markets responded positively in the immediate aftermath of the ruling. Equity indices rose modestly, and shares of companies with heavy import exposure saw gains. Investors appear to interpret the ruling as reducing legal uncertainty, even if tariff policy remains in flux.

Analysts estimate that the trade-weighted average tariff on U.S. imports could fall from approximately 15.4 percent to 8.3 percent, assuming the 10 percent Section 122 tariff is implemented as announced. That represents a meaningful reduction in effective tariff burden, although still above historical averages.

For ocean freight markets, the decision could unlock pent-up volumes. Since the end of the 2025 peak season, U.S.-bound container flows have been subdued, in part due to tariff uncertainty and the difficulty importers faced in forecasting total landed costs. If greater clarity emerges, booking patterns may normalize.

However, clarity is not yet certainty. A temporary 150-day tariff framework under Section 122 creates a new clock. Importers must now evaluate whether to accelerate shipments within that window, delay orders in anticipation of potential expiration, or hedge through alternative sourcing.

Alternative Tariff Mechanisms

Section 122 is rarely used and has never been deployed in this manner specifically for broad-based trade restrictions. Its temporary nature makes it a bridge tool rather than a long-term solution.

Section 301, by contrast, has a more established history. It requires formal investigation into unfair trade practices and typically results in more durable tariff actions. During the President’s first term, Section 301 was used extensively in connection with tariffs on China.

Section 232, related to national security, has also been used to justify tariffs on steel and aluminum in prior years. Expansion of Section 232 would likely focus on strategic sectors deemed essential to national security.

Another statutory provision, Section 338, technically allows tariffs of up to 50 percent on countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce. However, this mechanism is largely considered dormant and has not been widely used in modern trade policy.

In short, the administration retains several tools. The legal strategy may evolve, but tariff policy as a concept is not disappearing.

Operational Strategy for Businesses

For importers, exporters, and supply chain managers, this environment requires discipline and flexibility.

First, companies must prepare for a potentially complex refund process. Accurate historical records, entry documentation, duty payments, and internal tracking will be essential. Organizations that have maintained detailed customs compliance files will be in a stronger position to recover funds efficiently.

Second, scenario planning must continue. Although one tariff mechanism has been struck down, another has been announced. Businesses should model landed cost scenarios under 0 percent, 10 percent, and higher tariff assumptions. Contract terms with customers should be reviewed to determine how refunds or new surcharges will be treated.

Third, sourcing strategies should remain diversified. Over the past year, many companies adjusted supply chains to mitigate tariff exposure. While some may be tempted to revert quickly, a more measured approach is prudent. Policy remains fluid, and reversals could occur again.

Fourth, communication with customers is critical. Transparency about cost components, refund timing, and potential future adjustments will strengthen trust.

Industry Coordination and Policy Monitoring

Industry associations will play a central role in interpreting developments and advising members. Regulatory guidance from Customs and Border Protection will shape the refund process. Additional judicial decisions may refine or clarify procedural aspects.

PNG is actively monitoring the situation and evaluating the evolving legal and regulatory landscape. We are reviewing developments closely and assessing the operational implications for our customers. PNG also awaits formal recommendations and guidance from the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, NCBFAA, which is expected to provide industry direction regarding compliance procedures and refund claims.

The coming weeks will likely bring additional clarity from the Court of International Trade and from Customs authorities regarding refund mechanics. PNG will continue to track these developments and communicate updates as actionable information becomes available.

Longer-Term Outlook

This Supreme Court decision reinforces a structural principle in U.S. governance regarding the separation of powers. Tariffs are taxes, and the authority to impose them ultimately rests with Congress unless clearly delegated under defined statutory frameworks.

At the same time, trade policy remains a dynamic instrument of economic and geopolitical strategy. The administration’s immediate pivot to Section 122 demonstrates that while one pathway has closed, others remain open.

For global supply chains, the broader lesson is resilience. Tariff exposure, geopolitical risk, and regulatory shifts are no longer episodic events. They are recurring features of the international trade environment.

Businesses that invest in compliance infrastructure, maintain diversified supplier bases, build strong advisory relationships, and adopt disciplined financial modeling will outperform those that react only after policy changes are finalized.

The Supreme Court ruling may have removed one layer of uncertainty, but it has not eliminated the need for strategic vigilance. The next 150 days under Section 122 will be closely watched. Parallel Section 301 investigations may create new longer-term frameworks. Additional litigation could arise.

For now, importers should focus on documentation, compliance, communication, and flexibility. Refund opportunities are significant but will require administrative effort. Future tariffs are possible but may follow more structured processes.

PNG will continue to monitor developments, engage with industry leadership, and provide timely guidance as regulatory instructions are clarified. In an environment defined by change, proactive coordination and informed decision-making will remain essential.

View All News Articles