On Friday, February 20, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a large set of the Trump Administration’s tariffs that relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held in a 6–3 decision that the “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs” because there was not clear congressional authorization giving the President “the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope” (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24 1287, slip op. (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026)).
While the ruling has been long anticipated by many United States importers, supply chain purchasers, and consumers that were hoping for relief from rising prices tied to the tariffs, the practical effect of the ruling is still unclear. For one, the Supreme Court issued no guidance on potential refunds. Additionally, the President has already pivoted to other laws to impose tariffs globally, rendering much of the relief in the import community short-lived. In fact, hours after the Supreme Court published its decision, the President issued an executive order that ended IEEPA-imposed tariffs, signaling that the White House was already moving down a new path.
Below we outline what this ruling means for current entries, refund strategy, supply chain planning, what to watch out for as the White House pivots to other authorities, and the steps you can take right now to position your business for the best outcome in light of the ruling.
What the Court Decided and Why it Matters
The ruling: The Court held that the IEEPA does not grant the President authority to levy tariffs and invalidated all tariffs imposed under that law. In short, the Court held that, because tariffs and duties are a tax on the American people, a power reserved to Congress, the statute would have needed to specifically and clearly delegate that power to the President. The Court held that the IEEPA does not specifically delegate the power to levy tariffs.
What does it cover? The ruling applied to many—but not all—of the tariffs imposed (and frequently adjusted) by President Trump’s administration starting in 2025, but it left in place tariffs imposed during his first administration. The majority of the invalidated tariffs are under two main categories: (1) those justified on the basis of addressing the alleged fentanyl trafficking crisis against Canada, Mexico, and China (commonly referred to as the “fentanyl tariffs”), and (2) those justified on the basis of the alleged global trade deficit (commonly referred to as the “reciprocal tariffs”). The President also imposed tariffs under the IEEPA on countries importing Venezuelan oil, countries doing trade with Cuba and Iran, certain goods from Brazil, and goods from India.
What is not covered? The ruling did not address, and thus left in place, tariffs imposed under other statutes, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (such as those on steel, aluminum, and, more recently, autos and auto parts), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (targeting specific Chinese goods), and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (the authority under which President Trump is imposing new tariffs this week).
What’s Next?
Timeline: In recognition, not of the Court’s ruling, but of the Executive Order ending IEEPA tariffs, United States Customs and Border Protection (Customs) issued guidance on February 22, 2026, indicating that it would stop collection of IEEPA tariffs on February 24, 2026, at midnight.
Refunds: As noted in the lead dissent, the Court’s majority opinion omits any discussion of whether or in what form a refund might be available for importers that paid IEEPA tariffs. As billions of dollars have been collected under these tariffs, Justice Barrett during oral argument and Justice Kavanaugh in his dissenting opinion noted that the process is likely to be a “mess.”
While Customs has orderly, preexisting processes to effectuate refunds of improperly paid duties, currently, Customs has only acknowledged the ruling and is still working out its practical guidance on next steps. If Customs determines that no further court rulings are necessary to confirm that refunds can be issued, then the refund process would likely depend on whether your entry has been liquidated:
- Liquidated entries: A liquidated entry is an import entry for which Customs has completed its review and issued a final, legally binding determination of the duties, taxes, and fees owed. Liquidation occurs within a year of entry, typically a little over 300 days after entry. For entries that have already liquidated, the path to recovery would require filing a protest with Customs within 180 days of liquidation.
- Unliquidated entries: Refunds for any IEEPA tariffs tentatively transmitted on recent entries should flow through Customs procedures for post-summary correction on the Automated Customs Entry (ACE) portal.
More likely, Customs will not begin to issue refunds without further instruction from the Court of International Trade (CIT), especially in light of the President’s suggestion in his press conference on Friday that he would not honor refunds for companies that file for them and instead would “end up being in court for the next five years.” The CIT has already confirmed that it has authority to order reliquidation and refunds in IEEPA matters under its residual jurisdiction. Previously, the government had stated that it would not oppose court ordered reliquidation if the tariffs are unlawful, which the CIT relied on in ruling that no preliminary injunction was required.
It is unclear at this point whether all importers will need to file individual actions with the CIT to secure refunds as the import industry awaits further guidance from Customs. Given the volume of copycat lawsuits that are being filed following Costco’s CIT lawsuit requesting refunds, the CIT may do something similar to what it did for the litigation challenging the Section 301 tariffs. The CIT stayed all similar cases and allowed a test case to proceed. That test case was appealed to the Supreme Court on Friday following the news of the IEEPA decision.
Trade Deals: As Justice Kavanaugh noted in his dissent, the ruling does not address how trade deals directly negotiated for individual rates will be affected by the ruling. The European Commission issued a statement on Saturday stating firmly that “[a] deal is a deal,” and it will not agree to pay higher tariffs as a result of this decision and the new replacement tariffs.
Watch for Replacement Measures
New Tariffs
The Trump Administration has already pivoted to other statutes as authority for its tariff plan. On Friday, the President released a proclamation imposing a 10 percent “temporary import surcharge” on all goods globally to combat the trade imbalance previously addressed by the reciprocal tariffs issued under IEEPA. The new authority comes from Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2132), which addresses fundamental international payment problems and limits the temporary tariff to no more than 150 days unless modified by Congress. The temporary duty goes into effect on February 24 but has several categories of exclusions, such as certain agricultural products, electronics, and pharmaceuticals. President Trump has already indicated in social media posts that the rate will increase to 15 percent.
The Trump Administration has also indicated that it would employ Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 for actions tied to unfair trade practices, which is the same law under which President Trump imposed tariffs on China in his first term. On Friday, President Trump directed the Office of the United States Trade Representative to use its Section 301 authority to investigate certain practices that burden or restrict the United States. While unwelcome to most importers, the advantage to tariffs imposed under Section 301 is that the industry will have a longer lead time to prepare for the imposed tariffs compared with the IEEPA.
United States companies can also expect increased activity under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act for industry-specific measures taken to protect national security after an investigation by the United States Commerce Department. Section 232 products currently under investigation include: semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment, processed critical minerals and derivative products, and robotics and industrial machinery. As with Section 301 tariffs, Section 232 tariffs have a longer on-ramp than that of the IEEPA with opportunities for public comment.
Finally, Justice Kavanaugh also mentions in his dissent several other authorities under which the President might impose tariffs without challenge, such as Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 or Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Other Measures
The President has additional avenues that he can pursue to impose his policy goals and continue trade negotiations globally. For one, we anticipate that the White House could attempt to make significant changes to the antidumping and countervailing duty processes or use these processes in novel ways within its discretion. Additionally, the President may use Section 301 investigations to put additional negotiation pressure on countries and regions, including with respect to renegotiation of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), the regional free trade agreement that President Trump negotiated and implemented during his first administration.
What You Can Do Now
- Inventory your exposure: Pull 2025 and 2026 entry summaries and identify IEEPA tariffs paid.
- Preserve records: Retain entry packets, broker communications, and proof of duty payments and bonds. These will support reliquidation and interest.
- Coordinate with your broker today: Ask about removing IEEPA codes on new entries once Customs issues instructions and about post-summary corrections for entries filed in recent days. Ask your broker to create a spreadsheet of tariffs paid by Harmonized Tariff Schedule code and by tariff category so you can start tracking and being prepared for a possible refund.
- Pull together agreements and/or terms and conditions with your distribution and supply chains: While only the importer of record will be eligible for potential refunds, some companies contractually required other parties to reimburse those payments, and it will be important to review with counsel whether those agreements require the refund to be redistributed in any way.
- Coordinate with your trade counsel for ongoing developments and more specific guidance for your business: The Ice Miller team can analyze your entries to determine your eligibility for any potential refunds under the IEEPA, identify with you the best course of action, write protests if entries are past liquidation, file suits with the CIT if necessary, lobby the government on your behalf for exclusions under the new tariffs, and otherwise guide you through the next steps.
- Beware of scams and incomplete information: Vendors are already marketing AI and other tools that promise to identify eligible entries and generate claims at scale. Refund eligibility and claim posture turn on trade statutes, liquidation status, jurisdiction, interest, and protective filings. We recommend that a customs attorney review any claims to avoid errors that can forfeit rights or delay payment.
