Opinions expected

The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark decision in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump*, significantly curtailing presidential authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This ruling, issued on February 20, 2026, invalidated a substantial portion of the Trump administration's tariff regime, leading to a complex and contentious process for refunding billions of dollars in collected duties. Concurrently, the administration is challenging a Court of International Trade order mandating universal refunds, while also pivoting to impose new tariffs under other statutory authorities like Section 301 and Section 232, signaling a recalibration of executive trade policy and ongoing judicial scrutiny over the scope of presidential power in trade matters.

The landscape of U.S. trade policy has been profoundly shaped by the aggressive use of tariffs by the Trump administration, triggering extensive litigation and raising fundamental questions about the separation of powers. A recent pivotal development from the Supreme Court has significantly redefined the boundaries of presidential authority in this domain. While the administration has consistently leveraged various statutory tools to impose duties on imported goods, the judiciary has increasingly been called upon to scrutinize the legal underpinnings of these actions.

At the heart of the current legal discourse are two intertwined developments: a landmark Supreme Court decision invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and the subsequent, highly contentious process of refunding billions of dollars in duties collected under that now-defunct authority. Simultaneously, the administration has announced plans for new, sweeping tariffs under different statutory frameworks, indicating a strategic shift in its trade policy. This article delves into these critical legal developments, examining the judicial pronouncements, the ongoing disputes over tariff refunds, and the implications for practitioners navigating an evolving trade environment.

Historically, the power to impose tariffs in the United States resides primarily with Congress, as enshrined in Article I of the Constitution. However, Congress has, over time, delegated significant authority to the Executive Branch through various trade statutes. Key among these are Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which permits tariffs based on national security concerns, and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, allowing the President to respond to unfair trade practices.

The Trump administration notably expanded the application of these authorities. Under Section 232, tariffs were imposed on steel and aluminum imports, leading to challenges that largely upheld the President's discretion, though procedural aspects continue to be litigated. Section 301 was extensively used to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, sparking a trade war and numerous legal challenges, which the courts generally upheld, affirming the United States Trade Representative's (USTR) authority. A more controversial avenue was the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, particularly in 2025, citing national emergencies related to issues like drug trafficking. This expansive interpretation of IEEPA's authority to "regulate importation" became the subject of intense judicial scrutiny, culminating in a direct challenge to the President's power.

The most significant recent development is the Supreme Court's decision in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump*, issued on February 20, 2026. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that the power to tax, including through tariffs, is exclusively vested in Congress by the Constitution. The Court rejected the government's argument that IEEPA's authority to "regulate importation" implicitly delegated broad tariff-imposing power, applying the major questions doctrine to demand clear congressional authorization for such a significant economic and political power. This landmark decision invalidated all tariffs imposed under IEEPA, estimated to be over $160 billion, and reinforced the judiciary's role in upholding the separation of powers.

Following the *Learning Resources* ruling, the legal battle shifted to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) concerning the refund of these illegally collected tariffs. Judge Richard K. Eaton of the CIT issued an order requiring U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to allow all companies that paid the invalidated IEEPA duties to seek refunds, not just those who were plaintiffs in the original lawsuits. The Trump administration has announced its intention to appeal this "universal injunction," arguing that only companies that actively filed legal complaints are entitled to refunds. This dispute, involving billions of dollars and potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of importers, highlights a critical procedural and equitable challenge in unwinding an unlawful executive action. The pace and scope of these refunds remain a contentious issue, with the Justice Department asserting that the majority of eligible refunds are being processed through existing systems or pending lawsuits, while Judge Eaton has pressed for accelerated and expanded repayment.

In contrast to the IEEPA outcome, challenges to the Trump administration's Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods have largely been unsuccessful. The Supreme Court recently denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in *HMTX Industries and its affiliated companies v. United States*, effectively allowing the lower court rulings upholding the USTR's authority to impose and modify these tariffs to stand. This decision means that thousands of similar cases challenging the Section 301 tariffs are likely to be dismissed, solidifying the legal standing of these duties. Similarly, Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum have largely withstood constitutional challenges regarding the delegation of power, though ongoing litigation addresses specific administrative procedures and valuation methods employed by CBP.

In response to the IEEPA setback, the Trump administration has already pivoted its strategy, announcing plans for new, sweeping Section 301 tariffs, particularly targeting countries for alleged failures to enforce forced labor prohibitions. These new Section 301 investigations, alongside continued expansion of Section 232 tariffs, represent a strategic shift towards statutory authorities considered more "durable" in court. This indicates a continued aggressive stance on trade, albeit with a refined legal approach designed to navigate the constitutional and statutory limitations recently clarified by the Supreme Court.

The recent Supreme Court decision in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* marks a significant reassertion of congressional authority over trade policy, particularly the power to impose tariffs, and serves as a powerful reminder of the enduring importance of the separation of powers doctrine. While the IEEPA tariffs have been invalidated, the legal and practical ramifications, particularly concerning the refund of billions of dollars, are far from settled. The ongoing dispute over the scope of these refunds in the Court of International Trade will be closely watched, as it will determine whether relief extends broadly to all affected importers or is limited to those who actively litigated.

For practitioners, this dynamic environment necessitates heightened vigilance. Attorneys must advise clients not only on the immediate implications of the IEEPA refund process but also on the evolving landscape of Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs. The administration's announced plans for new tariffs under these more robust statutory authorities suggest that trade litigation will continue to be a prominent feature of the U.S. legal system. Staying abreast of developments in the CIT, the Federal Circuit, and potential future Supreme Court interventions will be crucial for guiding businesses through the complexities of U.S. trade policy and ensuring compliance while pursuing legitimate claims for redress.