USA: invalidation of IEEPA duties and new provisional tax
The U.S. Supreme Court recently restricted the President's authority in tariff matters, cancelling the increases introduced in 2025 on the basis of IEEPA. This decision creates uncertainty for importers and requires the anticipation of possible transitional measures based on other legal bases.
On 20 February 2026, the United States Supreme Court rendered a major judgment in the case Learning Resources Inc v. Trumpinvalidating the additional taxes introduced in 2025. It found that the levies applied that year on certain imports (Europe, China, Canada, Mexico and Brazil) under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were contrary to the duty. These measures, decided by the executive, fell within the exclusive competence of the Congress to establish or amend tariffs.
As soon as they were adopted, these increases had been appealed. Two federal courts as well as the Court of Appeal had already held that IEEPA did not allow the President to introduce taxes « Unlimited » Without Congressional approval. The Supreme Court confirmed this analysis on the basis of the Constitution. Sectoral arrangements, in particular those concerning steel and aluminium (Section 232), are not affected by this Decision.
However, the question of refunds remains open: the court did not specify how the sums collected were to be repaid, leaving the importers to initiate proceedings with the Commission. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). For businesses, this involves complex administrative procedures, or even litigation, in order to hope to recover the amounts paid.
From the day after the judgment, the U.S. administration reacted by announcing the immediate introduction of a provisional tariff of 10% (or even 15%, a rate referred to by the U.S. President but not yet confirmed) on all imports, this time based on Section 122 of the Trade Act 1974. Applicable for 150 days (until 24 July 2026), this system replaces the cancelled measures and covers the majority of products, with the notable exception of agricultural products, pharmaceutical products and vehicles.
To illustrate the point: a product with HS code 84314910 with EU origin, it has been submitted since 24 February 2026 provisional additional duty In addition to the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) rate, which is in the case of this HS code of 0%, 10% was introduced under Section 122 of the Trade Act 1974. If the product incorporates steel, aluminium or iron elements falling within the sectoral measures taken under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962, the increased rate of 50% applies exclusively to the declared value of these metal components, excluding the rest of the product.
By July 2026, these temporary surtaxes could give way to (Sections 301, 232 or 338). It is therefore crucial to follow the communications of the CBP and the Department of Commerce, and adapt the budget estimates accordingly.
The priority for businesses is: develop complete records (invoices, HTS codes and import evidence) and monitor CBP and Commerce announcements. For recently entered goods (less than 180 days), it is still possible to correct or contest IEEPA taxes in order to obtain a refund. For older operations, the U.S. Court of International Trade will be required to request reliquidation.
This decision constitutes a reminder of the principle of separation of powers. and paves the way for possible refunds, while stressing the importance of constant watch and rigorous preparation in an unstable business context.
Consequences in Europe: While the Turnberry agreement was to be discussed in committee on 24 February, the chairman of the International Trade Committee, Bernd Lange, finally announced the suspension of work on Monday.
The next episode!