Trump tariff ruling narrows emergency authority but trade uncertainty may continue

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled tariffs imposed under emergency powers unlawful, but sector-specific tariffs under Section 232 remain in place and questions about refunds are unresolved.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that tariffs imposed under the president's emergency powers were unlawful. That decision removes the specific authority used for the so-called reciprocal and fentanyl-related tariffs. Other U.S. tariffs imposed under different statutes remain active. The ruling also left unresolved whether businesses that paid those tariffs will be refunded. Key points: - The Court found tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unlawful, affecting the emergency-based reciprocal tariffs and fentanyl-related duties on Canada and other countries. - Sector-specific tariffs imposed under Section 232 — including measures on steel, aluminum, autos and softwood lumber — remain in effect, and other statutory tools such as Section 122 and Section 301 were cited by the administration as possible alternatives. - The decision did not set a mechanism for refunds; businesses and trade groups have filed or indicated they will pursue litigation and administrative refund claims. Summary: The ruling limits one presidential authority to impose emergency tariffs but does not remove other tariff measures, so existing sector-specific duties remain. The next procedural issues include litigation and administrative processes over refunds and possible further use of other trade statutes, which will determine how the situation evolves.