Trump Imposes 15% Tariffs Following Supreme Court Nullification of Previous Levies

On Friday, February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court delivered a landmark 6-3 ruling that invalidated the extensive tariffs previously implemented by President Donald Trump’s administration. These duties had been established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the text of the IEEPA contains no specific authorization for tariffs. He further clarified that no previous administration had interpreted the law in such a manner, concluding that the IEEPA does not grant the executive branch the power to levy import duties or taxes. Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, this authority is strictly reserved for Congress. The ruling represents a significant legal setback for the administration’s economic strategy, which had relied heavily on these measures as a tool of foreign policy.

By the time the court reached its decision, American importers had already contributed more than $200 billion in payments toward these now-unlawful tariffs. President Trump reacted swiftly to the verdict, describing the judicial outcome as "deeply disappointing." Refusing to abandon his trade agenda, the President announced the immediate implementation of new, temporary tariffs on the same day. This time, the administration cited Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 as its legal foundation. This specific provision allows for the imposition of temporary import surcharges to address a "large and serious balance-of-payments deficit." By Saturday, February 21, 2026, the administration had raised this universal tariff rate to 15%, hitting the maximum threshold permitted under that section of the law.

Unlike the IEEPA, Section 122 carries a stringent time constraint, limiting such import fees to a maximum duration of 150 days unless Congress intervenes with a vote to extend them. This rapid policy shift in Washington, D.C., has triggered immediate trade volatility for U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom. Industry analysts have weighed in on the implications of the court's decision. William Reinsch of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) remarked that the ruling effectively strips the President of a "big stick" in trade negotiations. Similarly, Wendy Cutler from the Asia Society Policy Institute noted that the transition to Section 122 deprives the executive of a tool that previously allowed for action "anytime, anywhere, for any reason," as was the case under the IEEPA.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the move, suggesting that the strategic use of Section 122, alongside other executive authorities, would ensure that customs revenues for 2026 remain "nearly unchanged." Following the court's decision, an Executive Order was issued to officially revoke the IEEPA-based tariffs. Simultaneously, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated new investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which could provide a legal basis for more permanent trade measures in the future. However, the fate of the $200 billion already collected remains a point of contention. In a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh warned that the process of managing potential refunds to importers could result in a significant administrative "mess."

Despite the nullification of the IEEPA tariffs, several other trade barriers remain firmly in place. These include the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as well as the Section 301 tariffs targeting Chinese imports. In London, the British government, led by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, has expressed hope that the UK will maintain its "privileged trading position" with the United States. This comes despite the fresh wave of uncertainty introduced by the 15% universal tariff under Section 122. Ultimately, this legal realignment has reignited a national debate regarding the constitutional boundaries of executive power in the realm of international commerce.