Advanced Customs Compliance in Action: Donna Armel’s Key Takeaways from ATCC
February 16, 2026
Freight Forwarding Built Right: What Makes a Reliable Forwarding Partner
February 20, 2026
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued one of the most consequential trade rulings in decades. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize President Trump to impose the sweeping tariffs he implemented under that law — a ruling that directly affects hundreds of thousands of U.S. importers and potentially reshapes how tariff policy is made in America going forward.
How We Got Here
The legal battle began in April 2025, when a coalition of small U.S. businesses — represented by the Liberty Justice Center and constitutional scholar Ilya Somin — challenged the “Liberation Day” tariffs at the U.S. Court of International Trade. Both the CIT and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the administration before the Supreme Court took up the case. Oral arguments before the nation’s top court ran nearly three hours on November 5, 2025. Today, the Court issued its decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown Jackson. The opinion was pointed: “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word ‘regulate’ to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.”
Roberts added what may become the ruling’s most cited line: “The fact that no President has ever found such power in IEEPA is strong evidence that it does not exist.”
The Voices of the Challengers
Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University and co-counsel for the five small businesses that originated the case, wrote in his reaction published today: “The Supreme Court rightly ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the President the power to ‘impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time.’ It’s a major victory for the constitutional separation of powers, for free trade, and for the millions of American consumers and businesses enduring the higher taxes and higher prices as a result of these tariffs.” Looking ahead, Somin was measured but clear: “I believe it will not be possible for the president to replicate the massive, sweeping worldwide tariffs he tried to do under IEEPA. Today’s ruling also signals that a majority of the Supreme Court is skeptical of claims of virtually unlimited delegation of tariff power to the president.”
Neal Katyal, the prominent appellate attorney who conducted oral arguments before both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court on behalf of the challengers, spoke from the steps of the Supreme Court after the decision was announced:
“Today, the United States Supreme Court stood up for the rule of law, stood up for Americans everywhere. Its message was simple. Presidents are powerful, but our Constitution is more powerful still. In America, only Congress — the Chief Justice, writing for six justices, said — only Congress can impose taxes on the American people, and that’s what tariffs are. Tariffs are taxes.”
What Was Covered Under IEEPA?
The tariffs struck down today include the “reciprocal” tariffs imposed on most U.S. trading partners beginning in April 2025, as well as the tariffs targeting China, Canada, and Mexico tied to fentanyl and border enforcement declarations. U.S. Customs and Border Protection had collected approximately $130 billion in IEEPA tariffs from roughly 301,000 importers across more than 34 million entries.
What Is NOT Changing — Yet
This ruling does not eliminate all tariffs, and importers should not treat this as the end of the tariff era. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, automobiles, auto parts, copper, and other commodities remain law. Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods — which have been in place since the first Trump administration — also remain. The administration has publicly stated it intends to re-implement tariffs under these and other alternative authorities and expects to do so quickly.
The tariff environment is shifting, not disappearing. Uncertainty is not over — it has simply changed shape.
The Refund Question: Real, But Complicated
Perhaps the most immediate question on every importer’s mind is whether duties already paid under IEEPA can be recovered. In theory, yes — but the path forward is not simple. The Supreme Court’s decision does not include guidance on how refunds are to be issued. That process will likely need to come from the lower courts and, potentially, from the executive branch. The Court of International Trade, which had paused refund cases pending this ruling, is now positioned to move forward, but no timetable has been established.
Whether you are eligible for a refund, and through what channel, depends on your specific entry dates, liquidation status, and duty exposure. This is not something to navigate alone — and it is not something to ignore.
Frequently Asked Questions About the IEEPA Ruling
What did the Supreme Court rule on IEEPA tariffs? The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Court held that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties, and that no president had previously used the law to impose tariffs in its nearly 50-year history.
Which tariffs were struck down? The ruling strikes down the “reciprocal” tariffs imposed on most U.S. trading partners beginning in April 2025, as well as tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico imposed under fentanyl and border enforcement emergency declarations.
Do all tariffs go away after this ruling? No. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, automobiles, auto parts, and copper remain in effect. Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods also remain. The administration has indicated it plans to re-implement tariffs under other legal authorities.
Can importers get a refund on IEEPA tariffs already paid? Potentially, yes — but the Supreme Court provided no guidance on how refunds will be processed. That process will be determined by lower courts and may involve the executive branch. Eligibility depends on your specific entry dates and liquidation status.
What Western Overseas Is Doing
This may be the most significant development to affect U.S. importers in quite some time.
Erica Budzilek, Vice President of Regulatory Compliance, said, “We are monitoring every development and will send subsequent notifications as the picture becomes clearer — including any guidance from CBP, the Court of International Trade, and the executive branch. If you have questions about your import history, your duty payments, or what steps may be appropriate for your business, contact your Western Overseas representative. We are here to help you make sense of what comes next.”
President Trump’s Response
At a press conference, the President announced two planned responses to this loss. The first, imposing a global, 10% tariff utilizing Section 122 of the Tariff Act of 1974, as amended. This provision of the law (officially called the Balance-of-payments authority), allows for up to 15% duty on a country – or countries – for up to 150 days. It’s likely this is the immediate stop-gap that the administration has selected. President Trump said, and was confirmed by USTR Greer, that they would widen the use of Section 301 investigations as well.
