Insights

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the companion case Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs on imported goods. The Court’s decision invalidates the worldwide reciprocal tariffs (“Liberation Day tariffs”) imposed by President Trump on a wide range of products as well as the tariffs imposed on China, Mexico, and Canada as a response to illicit drug trafficking concerns (“fentanyl tariffs”).

In a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the IEEPA’s statutory language does not grant tariff authority to the President. The Court emphasized that the IEEPA contains no reference to “tariffs” or “duties” and that Congress historically uses explicit language when it intends to delegate such taxing power. As such, the Court rejected the Trump administration’s contention that the IEEPA’s general authority to “regulate … importation” includes the power to enact tariff measures, noting that the statute’s text and structure do not support such a broad delegation of power to impose import taxes of unlimited amount, duration, and scope.

While six Justices agreed that the IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, there were separate concurring and dissenting opinions reflecting differing statutory interpretation and doctrinal approaches. The dissenting opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, for example, highlights that the invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs may require the government to refund “billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.”

Importantly, the majority opinion did not address the process for refunding IEEPA tariffs already collected by the U.S. government. Instead, the Court left the issue of remedies for consideration by lower courts, setting the stage for potentially complex litigation and administrative pathways to recover IEEPA tariff payments.

A key option for importers seeking tariff refunds will likely involve the use of Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) administrative procedures. If the entries have not liquidated, post summary corrections would likely be available. For entries that have liquidated, importers might file protests and demands for redress under relevant CBP procedures, arguing that the duties were not unlawfully assessed. CBP could be required to liquidate entries without the now-invalid tariffs and issue refunds of excess duties. The administrative route, however, could be time-consuming and would likely generate appeals to the Court of International Trade. An effective tariff refund strategy will require careful identification of impacted entries, distinguishing amounts paid under each tariff tranche, and tracking of liquidation status. We recommend companies run Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”) import reports to monitor their entries and gather and maintain all required entry documentation.

The Supreme Court’s decision ultimately represents a recalibration of the balance of trade authority between Congress and the Executive Branch and removes the IEEPA from the list of statutes available to support broad-based tariff programs. At the same time, the ruling opens a period of uncertainty as lower courts and CBP grapple with the mechanics of unwinding a tariff regime that generated billions of dollars in revenue and affected global supply chains. Importers should promptly evaluate their exposure, preserve and organize entry documentation, and develop a coordinated protest and litigation strategy to protect potential refund claims.

In light of the Supreme Court decision, President Trump announced that he will assess a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The President also indicated that he will make use of other authorities to implement additional tariff actions, including Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”) and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (“Section 232”). We have previously written extensively about active Section 301 and Section 232 investigations and tariff actions. Please also visit our Trade and National Security Center for additional resources such as a Global Tariff Navigator and the Torres Trade Trump Table, which tracks the latest changes to international trade laws by the Trump administration. 

***

We will continue to monitor developments at the Court of International Trade, CBP guidance, and any congressional response that may reshape the tariff landscape yet again. If you have questions about the new Supreme Court ruling and application of tariffs, please feel free to contact the attorneys at Torres Trade Law for assistance.