Supreme Court strips IEEPA tariff power

The U.S. Supreme Court said on February 20 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not let a president impose tariffs, rejecting the legal basis President Donald Trump used for sweeping duties on imports from Canada, Mexico, China and most other trading partners. In a 6-3 decision in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* and the companion case *Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.*, the court held that IEEPA authorizes many emergency economic restrictions but not tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. The ruling left in place lower-court decisions against the tariffs while not itself spelling out a refund formula for importers. ### Which tariffs did the court say were unlawful? President Donald Trump invoked IEEPA in 2025 for two separate tariff programs. One set imposed 25% duties on most Canadian and Mexican imports and 10% duties on most Chinese imports tied to declared emergencies over illicit drugs, according to the Supreme Court syllabus. Another set imposed a baseline 10% duty on imports from nearly all trading partners, with higher rates for dozens of countries, tied to what Trump called large and persistent trade deficits. (supremecourt.gov) The Congressional Research Service said the decision invalidated both the trafficking-related tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China and the broader reciprocal tariffs on most other imports. CRS said IEEPA gives the president broad emergency powers over economic transactions, but the statute does not specifically authorize tariffs. ### Why did the justices say IEEPA did not cover tariffs? (supremecourt.gov) Chief Justice John Roberts framed the case around a narrow question: whether IEEPA authorizes the president to impose tariffs. The court’s answer was no. The statute allows a president during a declared emergency to “regulate” or “prohibit” importation or exportation of certain property, but the majority concluded that language did not amount to a congressional grant of tariff power. (congress.gov) Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog reported that the justices said the tariffs exceeded powers Congress gave the president under the 1977 law. CRS separately noted that Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs and regulate foreign commerce, while Congress has delegated tariff authority in other statutes such as Section 232 and Section 301. ### Who brought the cases to the court? (supremecourt.gov) Learning Resources and V.O.S. Selections were among the challengers. The Supreme Court syllabus said the *Learning Resources* plaintiffs were two small businesses that sued in federal district court in Washington, while the *V.O.S. Selections* plaintiffs included five small businesses and 12 states that sued in the Court of International Trade. Both sets of challengers argued that IEEPA did not authorize either the reciprocal tariffs or the trafficking tariffs. (scotusblog.com) The lower courts agreed with those challengers before the Supreme Court took up the dispute. SCOTUSblog said those rulings had been put on hold during the appeal, allowing tariff collection to continue while the case was pending. ### Did the ruling automatically send money back to importers? The Supreme Court did not decide in its opinion how refunds should be handled. (supremecourt.gov) SCOTUSblog said the justices did not weigh in on whether or how the federal government should provide refunds to importers that paid the tariffs. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in dissent, wrote that the government “may be required to refund billions of dollars” to importers. (scotusblog.com) U.S. Customs and Border Protection has since built an administrative process for those claims. CBP says it is developing CAPE — the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries function within the Automated Commercial Environment — to streamline submission and processing of valid refund requests for IEEPA duties authorized by court order or other law. (scotusblog.com) ### How far has the refund process moved? U.S. Customs and Border Protection had processed refunds including interest worth $35.46 billion as of May 11, according to a May 12 Reuters report based on a court filing. Reuters said CBP had received 126,237 refund applications and had finalized refunds tied to 8.3 million entries. CBP activated Phase 1 of the CAPE process on April 20, according to a CBP notice. (cbp.gov) The agency said importers and authorized customs brokers can file CAPE declarations through ACE portal accounts, and the IEEPA duty refunds page says the process is intended to consolidate refunds, including interest, rather than handle them one entry at a time. ### What should readers watch next? (msn.com) May 11 is the latest concrete checkpoint in the public refund record. CBP said on its IEEPA duty refunds page that CAPE remains the channel for refund submissions, and Reuters reported on May 12 that the agency was continuing to process applications and reliquidate entries. (cbp.gov) (content.govdelivery.com)