SCOTUS Holds IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful

Supreme Court Decision: Trump v. V.O.S. Selections

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, negating the President’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The case stemmed from President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries, citing national emergencies. Challengers argued—and the Court agreed—that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President. The power to tariff is vested in Congress by the Constitution and cannot be delegated to the President absent express authority from Congress.

The opinion underscored several key points:

• Constitutional Structure: The power to impose tariffs is a core legislative function reserved for Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
• Statutory Text: IEEPA authorizes the President to “regulate … importation,” but does not mention tariffs, duties, or taxes. The Court found that “regulate” does not ordinarily include the power to tax or impose tariffs.
• Major Questions Doctrine: The opinion invoked the major questions doctrine, stating that given the significant economic and political consequences of the duties, IEEPA’s language is too vague to construe it authorizing such a sweeping delegation.
• Historical Practice: The Court noted that no President had previously used IEEPA to impose tariffs in the statute’s nearly 50-year history, and that Congress has delegated tariff powers in other contexts only through explicit statutory language.

Implications for Future Duty Collection

• CBP Should Not Be Collecting IEEPA duties. In light of the decision, IEEPA is no longer a lawful mechanism for CBP to collect duties. But it may take time for CBP to implement systems that allow entry without payment of IEEPA tariffs.   
• Presidential Tariff Authority Persists Under Other Statutes: The decision does not eliminate other presidential tariff powers; statutes such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974 continue to authorize the President to impose tariffs in specified circumstances.
• Alternative Statutory Authorities: In a press conference following the decision, the President expressed his frustration, but noted he had other tariff tools available and announced a 10% global tariff on all imports under section 122 effective Monday, February 23, affirmed all existing 232 (product) and 301 (unfair trade practices) tariffs, and announced the Administration would launch new tariff investigations. 

 

Statute	Requirements for Imposition of Tariffs
Section 232 –  National Security (Trade Expansion Act, 1962)	Commerce Investigation and finding of national security risks required.
Section 301  –  Unfair Trade Practices (Trade Act, 1974)	USTR formal investigation and justification.
Section 122 – Balance of Payments (Trade Act of 1974)	President may impose temporary tariffs up to 15% (and for up to 150 days) to address trade imbalances.
Section 338 – (Tariff Act of 1930)	Permits duties up to 50% on imports from countries discriminating against U.S. goods.  No relevant precedent for use.
Section 201 – Global Safeguard (Trade Act of 1974)	Upon U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation and Presidential determination of substantial harm, authorizes tariffs to respond to a sudden surge of imports.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in V.O.S. Selections striking down the President’s authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA reaffirms Congress’s authority to control the levying of tariffs, and that if Congress wants to delegate that authority to the President, it must do so explicitly and with clear limitations. While the ruling forecloses the use of IEEPA for tariffs, it leaves unresolved the issue of refunds for tariffs already collected, which we expect will be the subject of further litigation in the CIT.

Meanwhile, the President’s tariff authority under other statutes remains intact.