The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed a lower court ruling that declared the use of tariffs as an emergency measure by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) illegal. In immediate response, Trump announced the application of a new global tariff of 10% for 150 days as a provisional measure.
In a decision adopted by six votes in favor and three against, the high court considered that the tariffs imposed under the IEEPA in response to various threats declared as "emergencies" exceed the executive powers granted by that law, thus declaring them null.
Between 60% and 65% of the approximately $200 billion collected by the U.S. federal government in tariffs since 2025 came from rates applied under the IEEPA. These included tariffs related to fentanyl and border protection, specific levies on countries importing Russian oil, and most of the so-called reciprocal tariffs. Sectoral tariffs established under other enabling regulations, such as those affecting steel and aluminum, are not affected by this ruling.
In a press conference held after the ruling became known, Trump harshly criticized the decision and labeled the judges who voted against him as "a disgrace to our nation." At the same time, he stated that the ruling clears uncertainties and clarifies other powers he holds under the IEEPA, including the possibility of imposing complete trade embargoes. "Now I have more power to regulate trade and impose tariffs. It will soon become clear that revenues will increase thanks to this decision," the president noted.
New 10% tariff under Section 122 Trump emphasized that the Supreme Court did not nullify all existing tariffs, "only those applied under the IEEPA." He specified that tariffs for national security reasons and those established under Section 301 "remain fully in force." Furthermore, he announced the application of a new global tariff of 10% under Section 122, and anticipated the beginning of "several" investigations under Section 301.
A Section 122 tariff is authorized by the Trade Act of 1974 and allows the imposition of rates of up to 15% for 150 days to address persistent trade balance deficits or to defend the value of the dollar. This provision had never been subjected to a legal challenge. On the other hand, a Section 301 tariff may be applied in response to foreign trade practices deemed "unreasonable" or "discriminatory," generally following an investigation and public consultation process subject to pressure from the affected sectors.
The issue of refunds The U.S. Administration now faces the complex question of whether it will have to refund the approximately $130 billion collected under the tariffs that have been annulled. Trump criticized the Supreme Court for not addressing this issue in its ruling. "We will be in court for the next five years," he warned. The president had previously stated that the refunds would be "almost impossible to manage for the country," although this matter is also the subject of litigation.
Sara Albrecht, president of the Liberty Justice Centre, the organization that led the case against the Administration, told the BBC that there are mechanisms in place to proceed with the refunds and that she hopes they will be utilized. "It's just a matter of getting the money to the people. I will demand that it be done," she stated. In a written statement, the organization indicated that it plans to help small businesses manage the refund process, including developing a centralized database and a network of referrals to specialized lawyers.
Trade agreements and uncertainty Another issue raised in the press conference is the fate of the trade agreements that include references to IEEPA tariffs. Trump noted that some of those tariffs will be maintained, "others will not and will be replaced by other levies," which in some cases could be "potentially higher." Despite the disappointment he showed regarding the ruling, the president downplayed the idea that the ruling would create new uncertainty around tariff policy. "We have certainty. Ultimately, we have certainty, everything is proven," he concluded.