US Tariffs shift as Supreme Court curbs IEEPA; 232 in focus

Ruling curbs IEEPA tariffs; most trade deals stand, with uncertainty

A U.S. Supreme Court decision has sharply limited the president’s ability to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs, curbing emergency-based levies and forcing a reset of tariff strategy. According to UPI, the ruling constrains the use of emergency powers for tariffs and is pushing the administration to look to different statutes.

The White House maintains that recently announced trade deals remain intact despite the shift in legal footing. As reported by CNBC, President Donald Trump defended his tariff agenda and insisted existing agreements are safe even after the Court’s decision.

Why it matters: IEEPA limits vs. Section 232 alternatives

IEEPA is principally a sanctions tool for national emergencies, not a general-purpose tariff authority; the Court’s curtailment narrows scope for unilateral duties premised on emergency declarations. Other trade statutes with different thresholds and processes remain available, notably the Trade Expansion Act of 1962’s Section 232 (national security) and, potentially, Section 301; as reported by Lawfare, the administration is exploring fallback routes and their legal durability is already under scrutiny.

Legal specialists say the decision reasserts Congress’s primacy over broad tariff making and narrows the path for routine trade policy via emergency powers. “The International Emergency Economic Powers Act provides limited authority to the President … the Supreme Court correctly smacked that down,” said Norm Eisen, former U.S. ambassador and constitutional law scholar.

Immediate impacts: affected tariffs, refunds, partner and business reactions

Any tariff measures that relied on IEEPA are now in legal jeopardy, and importers are focused on potential refunds, timing, and documentation requirements. According to NBC Right Now, Sen. Maria Cantwell called for a transparent and accelerated process to return duties collected under IEEPA where those levies are deemed unlawful.

Trading partners are distinguishing between emergency-based tariffs and those under other laws. As reported by AOL, Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc welcomed the ruling but emphasized that Section 232 tariffs, rooted in a different statute, were not overturned.

Corporate reactions echo a wait-and-see posture given the prospect of reconstituted tariffs via alternate authorities. As reported by Yahoo, Italian wine industry leader Lamberto Frescobaldi warned that while the decision removes one legal pathway, uncertainty persists because duties could be reimposed through other channels.

Recent dealmaking appears largely intact for now, though counterparties are pressing for clarity on the administration’s next steps. Wendy Cutler of the Asia Society Policy Institute said partners proceeded with agreements despite known legal risks and are waiting to see a Plan B, as reported by National Newswatch.

Which tariffs are affected vs. unaffected by the ruling

Affected: Tariffs predicated on IEEPA emergency declarations are curtailed by the Court’s decision. For importers that paid such duties, refund eligibility will depend on implementing guidance and case-by-case determinations, and timing remains uncertain.

Unaffected: Tariffs imposed under separate legal authorities, most prominently Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, remain in force. Section 301 measures are likewise outside the immediate scope of the ruling; however, any new or expanded use of alternative statutes could face additional legal challenge and administrative review.