The Evolving Landscape of Presidential Tariffs After the Supreme Court’s Decision in Learning Resources v. Trump

In February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), a 1977 law granting the president power to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats, did not authorize President Trump to impose sweeping tariffs through a series of 2025 executive orders. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. The decision struck down tariffs that had generated over $100 billion in revenue for the federal government. However, the majority opinion does not address the refund of tariffs already paid, and the question of whether and how importers will receive refunds remains unresolved. 

After the ruling, the administration moved quickly to reassemble its trade agenda using alternative statutory authorities. President Trump swiftly imposed 10% global tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits the president to unilaterally impose “temporary import surcharges” of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.” President Trump stated he intends to raise those tariffs to 15%, but he has yet to do so. These temporary tariffs are set to expire on July 24, 2026, and under Section 122, congressional approval is required to extend the tariffs beyond 150 days. Legal challenges to President Trump’s use of Section 122 have already been filed in the Court of International Trade (CIT), with a coalition of states arguing that the president has not satisfied the statutory prerequisites for invoking the law.

Additionally, on March 11, 2026, the administration launched a new series of trade investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which could eventually lead to the imposition of a new wave of permanent tariffs. Under Section 301, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative can investigate whether foreign countries are engaged in “unfair” trade policies that harm U.S. trade. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced that these investigations would examine excess industrial capacity, government subsidies, suppression of workers’ wages, and other practices that could give foreign companies an unfair advantage over U.S. businesses. The investigations target a wide range of countries and trading blocs, including China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, and India. On March 12, 2026, the administration also launched a separate set of Section 301 investigations focused on the importation of goods made by forced labor, covering 60 economies. Greer indicated that additional Section 301 investigations could follow focused on issues including digital service taxes, pharmaceutical drug pricing, and ocean pollution. Timeline pressures of the new investigations are significant, as the administration is using the July 24 expiration of the Section 122 tariffs as a benchmark for bringing President Trump “potential options.” 

Meanwhile, President Trump has publicly attacked the Supreme Court’s decision. He warned that the decision could cost the United States trillions of dollars and claimed that “as the Court pointed out,” he has “the absolute right” to charge tariffs “in another form.” However, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court’s decision did not say the president had the absolute right to impose tariffs in another form, and instead, the majority opinion declined to address whether alternative statutes could justify the tariffs. Further, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s ruling, the president has continued to leverage U.S. economic power in the international arena, including threatening to cut off all trade with Spain after its government refused to permit the use of jointly operated bases for U.S. military operations. Additionally, U.S. officials have kicked off trade negotiations with Mexico regarding the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and will meet with China’s President Xi Jinping at a planned summit that was recently delayed by President Trump. 

Several significant legal questions remain in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The refund process for the over $100 billion already collected tariffs under IEEPA has proven extraordinarily complex. More than 2,000 lawsuits seeking refunds have been filed in the CIT by major companies. Although Judge Richard Eaton of the CIT directed the government to provide refunds with interest, which is accruing at an estimated $650 million per month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has indicated the government is “not able to comply” with the order due to the unprecedented volume of refunds and its technological limitations. The government is now developing a new web-based system to handle the refund requests, which is expected to take at least 45 days. Additionally, the Supreme Court left open several questions about the scope of IEEPA, including whether the fentanyl-related tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico actually addressed “an unusual and extraordinary threat” as the statute requires, and whether courts can even review the president’s determination that he is acting to “deal with” such threats. The Court also did not address the full scope of the president’s power to “regulate . . . importation” under IEEPA beyond the tariff context.

The administration’s tariff policies are changing on a weekly—and sometimes daily—basis. From the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling, to the imposition of new tariffs under alternative statutory authorities, to the opening of sweeping trade investigations and the evolving refund process, developments continue to unfold rapidly. We strongly encourage our clients to consult with legal counsel to stay informed of the latest changes and to assess the potential impact of these evolving tariff policies on their businesses and supply chains.