The U.S. Supreme Court (6-3) has clarified that the President may not impose tariffs on the basis of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This decision affects, in particular, the reciprocal tariffs and the fentanyl-related tariffs. Other trade policy instruments, in particular Section 232, Section 301, and the anti-dumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) regimes, remain unaffected.
The decision does not find a direct constitutional violation but rests primarily on statutory interpretation. The Supreme Court does not deny in principle the possibility of a delegation of tariff authority; rather, it finds that the IEEPA does not contain such a delegation. The majority opinion follows a classical method of interpretation. At its core is the distinction between the power to “regulate” foreign trade and the imposition of “duties.” On 87 of the judgment’s 170 pages, the Court analyses the linguistic scope of these terms and concludes that a general regulatory authorization does not encompass a fiscal tariff power.
Systematically, the Court points out that other trade statutes, in particular Section 232 and Section 301, contain express tariff authorizations. It is precisely these explicit provisions that argue against an implicit delegation within the IEEPA. The constitutional context also plays a role: tariffs are considered “duties” and fall within Congress’s core fiscal power under Article I (the Taxing Power). A delegation of this power requires a clear statutory basis.
In addition, the Court relies on the Major Questions Doctrine. Measures with significant effects on the economy as a whole require a clear statutory authorization. A general-clause-type formulation in the IEEPA does not suffice for this purpose.
The judgment emphasizes that tariff challenges must generally be brought before the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The district court proceedings were vacated and remanded; the CIT proceedings were affirmed.
What does this now mean for companies that, in recent months, have had to pay IEEPA tariffs on imports into the United States? The Court does not order an automatic refund. Nor does it create a special refund mechanism. Refunds may only be pursued through the existing legal remedies against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Nevertheless, it is to be expected that no new IEEPA tariffs will be imposed on imports going forward.
Companies that have imported goods into the United States in recent months and paid IEEPA tariffs in doing so should act promptly and examine whether steps are required. The following steps should be considered:
- Data analysis and delineation:
All imports should be reviewed to determine whether they fell under the IEEPA tariffs now declared unlawful. A clear delineation from regimes that remain valid (Section 232, Section 301, AD/CVD) is essential. - Review of liquidation status:
For entries not yet liquidated (typically within roughly 314 days): file a Post-Summary Correction (PSC).
For entries already liquidated: file a protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 within 180 days of liquidation. - Further legal recourse:
If a protest is denied, there is a 180-day period within which to bring an action before the Court of International Trade. If the authority fails to act, an accelerated disposition of the protest may be requested under 19 C.F.R. § 174.22.
Only the Importer of Record is entitled to file such a request. German corporate groups must therefore closely involve their U.S. subsidiary or the designated U.S. importer. The decision shows that a coordinated approach should now be implemented within the company at short notice, in order to secure refund claims, avoid missed deadlines, and take account of downstream effects as early as possible.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision significantly limits IEEPA authority and strengthens Congress’s role in tariff law. For importers, however, there is no automatic entitlement to a refund. Claims must be asserted actively, in a structured manner, and within the applicable deadlines. Missed deadlines result in the final loss of any claim. Further developments in U.S. tariff policy should also now be monitored with heightened attention. In response to this Supreme Court ruling, President Trump has already announced further tariffs. He intends, starting next week, to impose a global tariff rate of 10%, based on a different authorization under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
We would be glad to assist you with a structured review and the necessary next steps
