--- title: $133 Billion in Trump Tariffs Await a Supreme Court Ruling description: The consolidated IEEPA cases cover $133 billion in duties imposed under two emergency declarations. A ruling could trigger refund claims on the full amount. author: Darie Nani (Editor-in-Chief) date: 2026-02-16T14:05:14.000Z updated: 2026-02-26T17:55:07.680Z canonical: https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/133-billion-in-trump-tariffs-await-a-supreme-court-ruling image: https://cdn.nanimediahouse.com/supreme-court-ieepa-tariffs.webp categories: Legal content_type: News region: United States publication: Sovereign Magazine --- President Donald Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on imports from nearly every US trading partner in 2025, citing two separate national emergencies. In February, he declared illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking an emergency and imposed 25 per cent duties on Canadian, Mexican and Chinese goods. On 2 April (a date the White House called ‘Liberation Day’), he declared persistent trade deficits a second national emergency and imposed reciprocal tariffs of 10 to 41 per cent on nearly all remaining countries. Both actions relied on IEEPA, a 1977 statute designed to authorise asset freezes and transaction blocks during foreign policy crises. No president had used it to impose tariffs before. The consolidated Supreme Court cases (*Trump v. V.O.S. Selections* and *Learning Resources v. Trump*) cover approximately $133 billion in duties collected under both declarations. ## Two emergencies, one question The Court of International Trade ruled in May 2025 that IEEPA does not authorise import duties, a decision the Federal Circuit upheld in August. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on 5 November 2025. During arguments, several justices questioned the connection between the declared emergencies and the tariffs imposed. The immigration emergency was used to tax all Canadian imports, not just border-related goods. The trade deficit emergency treated a structural feature of the US economy as a crisis requiring immediate executive action. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson pressed these points directly. Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh appeared more sympathetic to the administration’s argument that IEEPA’s broad language permits any economic measure during a declared emergency. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett gave less clear signals, though both Roberts and Gorsuch have previously ruled to limit executive authority under the major questions doctrine. A ruling against the administration would open the door to refund claims on the full $133 billion in duties already collected. The Court of International Trade has stayed all refund litigation pending the decision. ## Without IEEPA, the alternatives are narrower If the court rules against the administration, the remaining presidential tariff authorities are significantly more constrained. Section 122 of the Trade Act caps tariffs at 15 per cent for a maximum of 150 days. Section 232 requires a Commerce Department investigation lasting several months and has already been used for steel and aluminium duties. Section 301 requires a full investigation by the US Trade Representative that took over a year when applied to the original China tariffs in 2018. None of these would permit the kind of immediate, economy-wide duties that [IEEPA enabled](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/supreme-court-tariff-ruling-unravels-the-turnberry-deal). ## What this means for European trade The EU-US [trade framework](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/the-eu-gave-trump-his-trade-deal-then-rewrote-the-fine-print) agreed at Turnberry was negotiated while IEEPA tariffs on European goods remained a credible threat. If the court strikes down IEEPA tariff authority, future duties on European exports would require either congressional legislation or one of the narrower statutory authorities. Each involves longer timelines, lower ceilings and formal investigative procedures that Brussels could contest through the World Trade Organisation rather than negotiating under the immediate pressure of an executive order. The EU has separately adopted an Anti-Coercion Instrument to counter [economic coercion](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/eu-considers-anti-coercion-instrument-against-us-over-greenland-tariffs) and used tariff pressure as a catalyst for deeper [European integration](https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/trump-deserves-a-medal-for-european-unity) on trade and defence. ## Further Context **Q: What does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do?** IEEPA grants the president authority to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to an unusual and extraordinary foreign threat. Congress enacted the statute in 1977 as a peacetime replacement for the Trading with the Enemy Act, which had given presidents broad wartime economic powers. IEEPA has been used primarily to impose economic sanctions (freezing assets, blocking transactions and restricting financial access for designated individuals and entities). Before 2025, no president had invoked the statute to impose tariffs or customs duties on imported goods. **Q: Does the President have the power to implement tariffs?** The US Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to levy taxes, including tariffs, under Article I, Section 8. Over the past century, Congress has delegated limited tariff authority to the president through several statutes, each with specific constraints. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act allows tariffs for national security reasons after a Commerce Department investigation. Section 301 of the Trade Act permits tariffs in response to unfair trade practices after investigation by the US Trade Representative. Section 122 allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 per cent for 150 days to address balance-of-payments problems. **Q: Do tariffs need to go through Congress?** Under the Constitution, tariff legislation requires congressional approval. The delegated authorities (Sections 122, 232 and 301) allow the president to act without a new congressional vote, but each imposes procedural requirements such as formal investigations, time limits or caps on tariff rates. The central question in the IEEPA cases is whether Congress also delegated tariff authority through the emergency powers statute, which contains no such constraints. Both the Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit ruled that it did not.