Supreme Court Rules Against Presidential Tariff Authority Under IEEPA

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. This ruling affects tariffs previously enacted under IEEPA and initiates a new phase for how refunds are handled for those tariffs.

The case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, was decided by a 6-3 majority. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson, while Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissented. The ruling consolidated another case, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, and directly impacts the legal framework for presidential tariff actions under IEEPA.

The Supreme Court did not specify a process for refunding tariffs already collected under IEEPA. Instead, the Court remanded the matter to the U.S. Court of International Trade, which holds the authority to order reliquidation and refunds. This step leaves the timeline and mechanics of any refunds to be determined by further judicial and administrative proceedings.

As of December 14, 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection had collected about $170 billion in tariffs imposed under IEEPA. Importers had paid approximately $133.5 billion by that date, with estimates rising to at least $160 billion by February 20, 2026. Customs and Border Protection began transitioning from paper check refunds to electronic payments starting February 6, 2026.

What the numbers show

• About $170 billion in IEEPA tariffs collected by December 14, 2025
• Importers paid at least $133.5 billion by December 2025
• Electronic refunds by Customs and Border Protection began February 6, 2026

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that the Treasury Department has sufficient funds to manage refunds but indicated the process could take more than a year. The Supreme Court’s decision did not address how or when refunds should be distributed, leaving these details to further administrative and legal action.

Legal analysts and economists have noted that the refund process may require extensive litigation and administrative procedures, potentially extending the timeline for returning funds to importers. The complexity of the process is expected to involve multiple agencies and court decisions before completion.

The Supreme Court’s remand to the U.S. Court of International Trade places responsibility for determining refund eligibility and procedures with that court. The Court of International Trade has the authority to order reliquidation and refunds, but has not yet issued a timetable or detailed guidance for affected importers.

Customs and Border Protection’s move to electronic payments is intended to streamline future refund distributions. This change follows the Supreme Court’s decision and is part of the ongoing administrative response to the ruling.

* This article is based on publicly available information at the time of writing.