The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the bulk of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, ruling in a 6-3 decision that the administration exceeded its authority by relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose many duties. The ruling centered on constitutional limits on presidential power rather than the merits of tariffs themselves.
In response, the White House announced an immediate plan to replace some of the invalidated duties. President Trump said he would impose a 10% global tariff for 150 days under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That provision allows the president to levy duties of up to 15% for up to 150 days on countries linked to ‘‘large and serious’’ balance-of-payments problems; it requires congressional approval only if duties are to continue beyond the 150-day window.
‘‘We have alternatives, great alternatives,’’ Trump told reporters, suggesting the new approach could generate revenue and strengthen the U.S. position. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Treasury’s estimates indicate combining Section 122 measures with potentially expanded Section 232 and Section 301 actions would keep tariff revenues in 2026 nearly unchanged.
Legal experts note other statutory routes for tariffs, though they differ in speed and requirements. Section 301 of the Trade Act permits tariffs on trading partners that violate trade agreements and harm U.S. businesses; it has no statutory cap on rates or duration but requires investigations that can take months. The administration said it has opened several Section 301 unfair-trade investigations.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes tariffs on national security grounds for specified sectors, such as steel, aluminum or lumber, after an investigation by the Commerce Department; Trump has used Section 232 in the past.
The court’s decision could trigger a wave of refund claims. U.S. Customs and Border Protection collected $287 billion in customs duties, taxes and fees in 2025—a 192% increase from the prior year, according to Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond calculations. That total includes duties that predated the Trump administration as well as recently imposed ‘‘reciprocal’’ tariffs.
Businesses and importers who paid the struck-down tariffs are expected to seek refunds. Any repayments would go to the importers who paid duties, not to consumers, and processing claims would be administratively complex. The government could face substantial lost revenue if refunds are required. Trump warned that settling refund questions ‘‘may take years’’ and predicted protracted litigation.
The legal challenge that reached the Supreme Court grew out of hundreds of lawsuits from companies and other parties aiming to block the tariffs. Over the past 13 months the administration enacted tariffs by executive action on many countries, sometimes pausing them or negotiating lower rates, citing trade imbalances and issues such as drug smuggling. Critics argue that several of the measures were aimed more at exerting diplomatic or economic pressure than at addressing genuine trade deficits.
With the court limiting reliance on IEEPA, the administration appears prepared to pursue a mix of Section 122 emergency duties, targeted Section 232 national-security tariffs and longer investigations under Section 301 to achieve its trade objectives while navigating constitutional constraints and likely litigation.