In One Sentence

• The Supreme Court on February 20 ruled 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) does not authorize President Donald Trump to impose his ‘Liberation Day’ and subsequent tariffs under declared national emergencies. 
• President Trump denounced the Supreme Court’s ruling as “nonsensical” and argued it does not meaningfully restrict his broader tariff authority.
• Hours after the Supreme Court ruling, President Trump signed a Proclamation invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% tariff on imports from around the world for 150 days, starting from February 24.
• In his State of the Union address on February 24, Trump asserted that almost all countries wanted to keep their bilateral trade deals, and he expects them to do so, knowing that his legal power as president to make a new deal could be “far worse.” 
• President Trump said new tariffs being developed under Section 301 and other authorities that replace the IEEPA duties will be “somewhat” higher than rates agreed to in existing bilateral deals.
• As Trump moves to impose new duties, China’s Ministry of Commerce said that it was fully assessing the ruling as well as the new 10% global tariff, urged Washington to remove unilateral trade measures, and warned that continued tariff conflict between the two countries is harmful.

Mark the Essentials

• Trump said in a Truth Social post that he is increasing the 10% Section 122 global tariff to 15%; the Trump administration is still working on implementing the 5% increase. 
• President Trump criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating his emergency tariffs and publicly questioned whether a rehearing was possible, despite such requests rarely being granted and potentially delaying lower-court proceedings on tariff refunds.
• The European Union postponed a committee vote on ratification of the EU-US trade deal as a consequence of the SCOTUS ruling and announcement of 15% global tariffs, while seeking clarification from the Trump administration on ways to “honor the agreement.”
• An auto parts importer argued before the Court of International Trade that the Supreme Court’s decision also invalidates his Executive Order revoking the de minimis duty-free exemption, contending that IEEPA does not authorize the president to rescind statutory tariff exemptions or impose duties without clear congressional approval.
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced on February 22 that it will stop collecting President Trump’s IEEPA-based tariffs starting from February 24, 2026.
• Private-sector plaintiffs have urged the Court of International Trade to promptly order the federal government to issue refunds with interest for IEEPA tariffs, arguing the government previously committed to repay them and cannot now resist doing so.
• A federal appeals court refused to delay enforcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling, clearing the way for the U.S. Court of International Trade to begin processing refunds for businesses that have paid the now-invalidated duties.
• The U.S. Trade Representative’s office plans to use upcoming Section 301 investigations as leverage to pressure trading partners into eliminating unfair trade practices, while relying on temporary Section 122 duties as a stopgap measure following the Supreme Court’s invalidation of President Trump’s emergency-powers tariffs.
• China’s Ministry of Commerce urged the U.S. to take an objective view of China’s compliance with the Phase One trade agreement and warned it will take all necessary measures to defend its interests if the U.S. proceeds with its Section 301 investigation or imposes new tariffs, while asserting that China has fulfilled its obligations under the deal and calling for continued bilateral consultation.
• Trade and legal experts say President Trump’s unprecedented use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a global 15% tariff on U.S. imports could face legal challenges, particularly over whether the U.S. trade deficit qualifies as the balance-of-payments crisis the statute requires.
• President Trump said the Supreme Court’s failure to address refunds for the roughly $175 billion collected under his invalidated IEEPA tariffs means the issue will have to be litigated in lower courts, as businesses and Democrats press for automatic repayments and the administration signals it will not issue refunds without a court order.
• Importers asked the Supreme Court to review a ruling that upheld the Trump administration’s expansion of Section 301 tariffs on China from $50 billion to $370 billion, arguing it lets USTR bypass congressional safeguards and warning the issue is urgent as the White House prepares new Section 301 actions to replace recently invalidated emergency tariffs.

Keeping an Eye On…

The day after the announcement of President Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ reciprocal tariffs on April 2, 2025, a first batch of plaintiffs had petitioned a U.S. District Court that the tariffs were illegal and unconstitutional. The plaintiffs made four points. First, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) did not allow the president to impose tariffs on the American people – a tariff being nothing more than “a tax on Americans’ commerce with other countries.” Second, no previous president in IEEPA’s nearly 50-year history had used this authority to impose tariffs, “which was not surprising since the statute does not even mention tariffs, nor does it say anything else suggesting it authorizes presidents to tax American citizens.” Third, the president’s tariffs ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine since the measure at hand was one of “vast economic and political significance” that clearly lacked congressional authorization. And fourth, if the IEEPA were to permit the reciprocal tariffs, then this statute would violate the non-delegation doctrine because “it lacks an intelligible principle that constrains a president’s authority.” Besides, Congress is barred from transferring its legislative power to another branch of government.

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court had the last word on Trump’s reciprocal and trafficking tariffs. In its ruling, the court sustained almost every point raised by the petitioners on April 3rd. IEEPA did not empower the president to impose tariffs because the president, lacking the inherent authority to do so during peacetime, did not obtain congressional authorization. The ‘Liberation Day’ reciprocal tariffs were indeed a classic instance of a major questions case. IEEPA had never been read by previous presidents since its passage to confer tariff-imposition authority, which was a telling indication that the tariffs extended beyond the president’s legitimate reach. In sum, IEEPA did not authorize the president to impose tariffs. 

The Supreme Court’s opinion was in fact far more emphatic in its treatment and takedown of the president’s authority to impose any tariffs utilizing IEEPA’s “regulate … importation” language than the two earlier court rulings. The Federal Appeals Court had danced around the question of the IEEPA’s authorities in August 2025, confining itself only to whether the current reciprocal and trafficking tariffs were authorized under IEEPA. Earlier in May 2025, the Court of International Trade had read the “regulate … importation” language as providing “limited authority” to impose tariffs but had struck down the president’s reciprocal tariffs on the basis of their unboundedness as well as their lack of compliance with the limitations set by Congress upon the president’s power to respond to balance-of-payments deficits. 

At this time, President Trump has pressed into service Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows him to proclaim a temporary import surcharge up to 15% ad valorem for up to 150 days to “address large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” or other certain situations that present “fundamental international payments problems.” Trump has imposed a 10% tariff and is exploring raising it to 15% but with exceptions built-in (which might contravene the statute). The application of duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232(b) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 are also being examined. Regarding Section 301 authority, after a perfunctory investigation Trump could designate the foreign bilateral trade surpluses as the product of unfair and “unreasonable” policies and impose tariffs on this basis which would be more-or-less unchallengeable in a court of law. All three aforementioned statutes fall under the “Customs Duties” title of the U.S. Code, unlike the unconventional IEEPA-based tariffs, which fell under the “War and National Defense” title. One way or the other, the president is determined to and will successfully manage to recreate his ‘Liberation Day’ measures, if only on a more drawn-out timeline.

Be that as it may, the larger irony of the Supreme Court’s ruling should not be lost. With a conservative majority on the bench, Republicans have for some time now won important rulings against the administrative state. In West Virginia v. EPA (2022), the Supreme Court laid out a major questions doctrine, which held that executive branch agencies were not at liberty to issue regulations of vast economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization. Earlier, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014), the court had similarly expressed its skepticism of newly discovered grants of executive authority discovered in decades-old laws, noting that “when an (executive branch) agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the American economy … we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism.” In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the court held that it was the duty of the courts to independently assess the best reading of a statute, rather than reflexively deferring to the executive branch’s interpretation, which had been the case since the mid-1980s. On February 20th, two of the three rulings were pressed into service again as precedents, although this time against a Republican president in order to defenestrate the basis of his vast ‘Liberation Day’ reciprocal and trafficking tariffs, with two of Trump’s three appointees to the bench ruling against the president.

Expanded Reading

• Trump plans to ‘adjust’ tariffs ‘somewhat upward’ from prior deals, Inside US Trade, March 3, 2026
• Federal appeals court rejects Trump administration’s push to delay start of tariff refund process after Supreme Court ruling, CBS, March 2, 2026
• Wither De Minimis After the Supreme Court IEEPA Decision?, Barnes Richardson Global Trade Law, February 27, 2026
• Trump Questions if ‘Rehearing’ Supreme Court Ruling Is Possible, Newsweek, February 26, 2026
• China says it has met US trade obligations, warns against more tariffs, Reuters, February 25, 2026
• Trump’s new global tariff comes into effect at 10%, BBC, February 24, 2026
• Liberty Justice Center Files Motions to Enforce Supreme Court Tariff Ruling and Trigger Immediate Refunds, Liberty Justice Center, February 24, 2026
• Trump’s Section 122 tariffs could spur new legal battle, experts say, CBS News, February 23, 2026
• Trump administration ending collections on tariffs deemed illegal, The Hill, February 23, 2026
• China reacts to US ruling with call for Trump to scrap unilateral tariffs, Reuters, February 23, 2026
• U.S. importers still paying Trump’s illegal tariffs even after Supreme Court ruling, CNBC, February 22, 2026
• ‘It was not discussed’: Trump says any tariff refunds could take years to litigate, The Economic Times, February 21, 2026
• Trump furious after Supreme Court upends his global tariffs, imposes new 10% levy, Reuters, February 21, 2026
• Supreme Court strikes down bulk of Trump’s tariffs, The Hill, February 20, 2026
• USTR expects new Section 301 probes to cover most major trading partners, Reuters, February 20, 2026
• Companies Seek Supreme Court Review in Section 301 Tariff Case, Tax Notes, February 20, 2026