The tariffs are gone, but don’t celebrate yet — Trump’s already planning new ones

Court strikes down emergency tariff power

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Feb. 20 that President Trump could not use a 1977 emergency law to impose tariffs.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson.

The decision threw out the “reciprocal” and fentanyl-related tariffs Trump had placed on goods from nearly every trading partner. No president had ever used the law, called IEEPA, to impose tariffs before Trump did.

IEEPA tariffs pulled in billions before falling

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act is a 1977 law designed to address national emergencies, such as freezing assets or blocking financial transactions.

Trump started using it in early 2025 to slap tariffs on imports from countries around the world.

By mid-December 2025, importers had paid an estimated $133.5 billion under those tariffs, making up more than half of the administration’s second-term tariff revenue.

Courts at every level ruled against the tariffs before the case reached the Supreme Court.

Trump lashed out at his own appointees

Trump called the ruling “deeply disappointing” and said he felt “ashamed” of certain justices.

He singled out Gorsuch and Barrett, both of whom he appointed, calling their decision an embarrassment to their families.

At a news conference just hours after the ruling, Trump said the decision would not stop his tariff plans. He announced he would use other laws to keep tariffs going, and he moved fast to do exactly that.

A new 15% tariff took effect days later

Within hours of the ruling, Trump signed an executive order placing a 10% tariff on all imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. He bumped it to 15% the next day, the maximum that the law allows.

Section 122 is meant to address serious problems with international payments, and no president had ever used it for tariffs before.

The tariff took effect on Feb. 24 and expires after 150 days, on July 24, unless Congress votes to extend it.

Legal experts question the new tariff too

Several economists say Section 122 does not legally apply because the U.S. does not have a true balance-of-payments deficit.

Under a floating exchange rate like the dollar, the currency adjusts on its own to prevent the kind of payments crisis the law was written for.

The Peterson Institute for International Economics pointed out that Trump’s own lawyers argued during the IEEPA case that Section 122 was not a real substitute for IEEPA.

No court has ruled on this yet, but legal challenges are expected.

Administration eyes tariffs on six more industries

The Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 23 that the administration is weighing national security tariffs on about six more industries.

The list reportedly includes large-scale batteries, cast iron and iron fittings, plastic piping, industrial chemicals, and power grid and telecom equipment.

These would fall under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs on goods the government considers a national security threat.

Section 232 has no cap on rates or time limits, but it requires a formal Commerce Department investigation first. No timeline has been set.

Nine industries already face tariff investigations

Before the ruling, the administration had already opened Section 232 investigations into nine other industries.

The list covers semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, drones, industrial robots, polysilicon for solar panels, wind turbines, medical equipment, and commercial aircraft. Some of those investigations started nearly a year ago.

The Supreme Court ruling could push the administration to speed those probes up, though nothing official has been announced.

A White House spokesman said safeguarding national and economic security remains a top priority.

Existing Section 232 tariffs already raise costs

Seven Section 232 tariff orders are already in effect, covering steel, aluminum, autos, copper, timber, trucks, and certain advanced semiconductors. The Supreme Court ruling did not touch any of them.

The Tax Foundation estimates those tariffs will cost U.S. households an average of about $400 in 2026. The price increases show up in cars, appliances, furniture, canned goods, and building materials.

Adding more industries to the list would push those costs even higher for shoppers.

The July deadline looms over trade policy

The 150-day Section 122 tariff looks like a bridge while the administration chases more lasting tariffs under other laws.

Section 301 investigations into unfair trade practices have also been announced but could take months.

If Congress does not extend the temporary tariff and no replacements are ready, rates on many goods would drop sharply in late July.

The administration may be using that window to wrap up Section 232 and Section 301 investigations before time runs out.

Over a thousand importers want their money back

More than a thousand importers have filed lawsuits seeking refunds on IEEPA tariffs, the Supreme Court just ruled illegal. FedEx was among the first major companies to file suit after the decision.

The court did not address refunds, leaving that fight to the Court of International Trade. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the refund process could take years to sort out.

The refunds would go to importing companies, not directly to consumers who paid higher prices.

American households feel the squeeze

The Yale Budget Lab estimates the tariffs still in place will raise consumer prices by about 0.6% in the short run. That works out to roughly $600 to $800 in lost purchasing power per household on average.

Metal products, electronics, and vehicles face the biggest price bumps.

If the administration adds new Section 232 tariffs on more industries, those costs could climb further. Trade uncertainty continues to affect business planning, hiring, and the prices Americans see at stores.

Trading partners wait for clarity

The European Union paused ratification of its trade deal with the U.S., saying it needs to understand what comes next. China called on the U.S. to drop unilateral tariffs after the ruling.

Trade deals signed under the IEEPA tariff regime are now in legal limbo since the authority behind them no longer exists.

U.S. allies and trading partners are watching closely to see whether new tariffs under other laws will match or exceed the old rates. The situation remains fast-moving.

This article was created with AI assistance and human editing.

Read more from this brand:

• The Supreme Court just put a hard limit on what presidents can do with trade
• Americans pay nearly 90% of tariff costs, new study finds
• Trump’s Swiss tariff story may have given his Supreme Court opponents a gift