IEEPA tariffs unwind after Supreme Court ruling

Canada got legal relief but not an economic reset. As reported by BBC News, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of President Trump’s global tariffs that were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). For Canadian businesses, the ruling removes a layer of legal risk, yet core trade frictions tied to other U.S. authorities remain.

Ontario’s premier underscored that practical pressures on cross-border trade still bite, warning that tariffs on autos, steel, aluminum, and forestry continue to weigh on workers, as reported by Toronto CityNews. The near-term takeaway: IEEPA tariffs are out, but the tariffs Canadians see most in invoices and supply chains are largely unchanged.

IEEPA tariffs struck down; Section 232 tariffs still affect Canada

The Supreme Court’s decision invalidates tariffs that specifically relied on IEEPA, narrowing the emergency powers pathway for future across-the-board duties. However, measures imposed under other authorities, most notably Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, and separate actions connected to automotive goods, still apply to Canadian trade.

Business groups view the ruling as clarifying law more than resetting economics. Candace Laing, President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, has emphasized that while the decision is positive, it mainly delivers legal certainty; enduring stability will depend on negotiated outcomes, not courtrooms, according to Halifax CityNews.

Why it matters for Canada’s trade and USMCA review

The immediate effect is to remove IEEPA-based costs where they existed, modestly improving visibility for importers and their lenders. Strategically, the ruling could incrementally strengthen Canada’s position heading into the 2026 USMCA review by reducing the probability that sweeping emergency tariffs reappear mid-negotiation.

Avery Shenfeld, Chief Economist at CIBC, has suggested the longer-run significance lies in leverage for the upcoming USMCA review rather than in quick macroeconomic gains. After that framing, Prime Minister Mark Carney called the judgment a “vindication” of Canada’s long-standing view that IEEPA tariffs were unlawful, while cautioning that other U.S. measures remain.

Reports also point to policy uncertainty that could refill the gap. As reported by Al Jazeera, the White House moved to impose a new 10% worldwide tariff following the ruling; details and scope may evolve, so Canadian firms should treat this as developing.

Immediate impact on autos, steel, aluminum, and forestry

For autos, the legal ruling does not, by itself, remove the primary sources of friction that manufacturers and parts suppliers face on cross-border sourcing. Any pricing relief from IEEPA-related items will likely be overshadowed by remaining U.S. measures and persistent logistics costs.

On metals, Section 232 tariffs still shape aluminum and steel pricing and contract structures. Jean Simard, President and CEO of the Aluminum Association of Canada, observed that conditions will not change immediately for aluminum under Section 232, although the ruling could weaken the U.S. posture in future disputes, as reported by Global News.

Forestry exports face ongoing U.S. trade actions distinct from IEEPA, so mills and shippers should not expect near-term shifts in duty exposure from this decision alone. Reflecting broader labour concerns, Lana Payne, the National President of Unifor, has warned that jobs remain under threat while the most harmful non-IEEPA measures stay in force.

Refunds for IEEPA tariffs: eligibility, documentation, and pitfalls

Eligibility turns on whether duties were paid under IEEPA, only those amounts fall within the scope of the ruling’s relief. Importers will need shipment-level documentation that ties specific entries and duty lines to IEEPA to substantiate claims with U.S. authorities.

Process questions remain unsettled. As per NPR, the Court left a multibillion-dollar refund issue unresolved, describing a $133 billion question over what happens to past collections. William Pellerin, a trade attorney at McMillan LLP, cautioned that obtaining refunds will be “a messy time,” pointing to an antiquated U.S. refund system and uncertain timelines, as reported by Canadian Lawyer Magazine.

From a controls standpoint, Canadian importers should expect intensive document checks, entry summaries, customs rulings, and payment proofs, and be prepared for extended processing. Given the split between IEEPA (struck down) and still-active measures like Section 232, claimants who commingle entries risk delays or denials if records do not cleanly separate the legal authorities involved.