Dear valued client,

Recent headlines about the Supreme Court striking down tariffs may suggest trade pressure is easing. That is not the case.

The Court removed one legal tool used to impose certain tariffs. It did not eliminate tariffs more broadly. In fact, the administration has already shifted to other statutory authorities that allow continued duty increases.

Below is what changed, what did not, and what importers should be watching closely.

What the Supreme Court decided

In a 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful.

The Court held that while IEEPA allows the President to regulate imports during a declared emergency, it does not clearly authorize the imposition of duties.

Practical impact

The country-specific and “fentanyl/trafficking” tariffs imposed under IEEPA, including those targeting Canada, China, and Mexico, no longer have legal standing under that authority.

What the decision did not do

The ruling:

• Does not eliminate tariffs imposed under other statutes, such as Section 232 or Section 301.
• Does not automatically trigger refunds of duties already paid.
• Does not prevent the administration from using other legal authorities to impose tariffs.

In short, the trade environment remains active.

Administration response: Section 122 Global Surcharge

Following the decision, the administration pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Section 122 allows for a temporary, broad import surcharge tied to balance-of-payments authority.

Key parameters:

• Up to 15% additional duty.
• May remain in place for up to 150 days, unless extended by Congress.
• Applies in addition to normal duties already in effect.

Final scope, product coverage, and exemptions will depend on the Executive Order and subsequent Federal Register and CBP guidance.

At this stage, operational details remain pending.

Canadian imports and CUSMA considerations

We expect the administration to preserve the structure of existing trade agreements. However, the treatment of Canadian-origin goods must be confirmed through implementing guidance.

Based on current expectations:

• CUSMA-qualifying goods are likely to retain preferential 0% treatment if the measure is structured to preserve agreement-based duty-free status.
• Non-CUSMA qualifying or non-originating goods are more likely to be subject to any new Section 122 surcharge.

Important reminder: CUSMA qualification does not exempt goods from tariffs imposed under other authorities, such as:

• Section 232 (national security).
• Section 301 (unfair trade practices).

Those measures remain in effect unless separately modified.

Other tariff authorities are still available

Although IEEPA is no longer available for tariffs, several other statutes remain in play:

• Section 122 – Temporary global surcharge (up to 15%, 150 days unless extended).
• Section 201 – Safeguard tariffs or quotas following an investigation.
• Section 232 – National security tariffs or quotas (no explicit rate cap).
• Section 301 – Tariffs tied to unfair trade practice investigations.
• Section 338 – Additional duties (up to 50%) or import prohibitions for discriminatory trade practices.

The practical takeaway: tariff risk has shifted, not disappeared.

Refunds of IEEPA duties paid

At this time, refunds are uncertain.

The Supreme Court addressed legality, not the unwind process for duties already collected.

We expect:

• Further litigation and/or administrative guidance.
• Clarification from CBP on treatment of past entries.

A critical point for many companies: any refund, if issued, would generally go to the Importer of Record (IOR) that paid or was liable for the duties. It does not automatically flow to exporters or vendors.

Entry status and liquidation timelines will matter.

Recommended actions for importers

While we await formal CBP instructions, importers should:

1. Confirm ACE Portal access to review entry history and duty exposure.
2. Review past entries to identify liquidation status and approaching 180-day protest deadlines.
3. Continue filing entries normally unless CBP issues new instructions.
4. Confirm who acted as Importer of Record on affected entries.
5. Evaluate exposure under Section 232 and Section 301, as those measures remain active.

Bottom line

The Supreme Court decision narrowed one legal pathway for tariffs. It did not signal a broader rollback of trade enforcement. The administration has already moved to an alternative authority, and implementation details are still developing.

We are actively monitoring CBP guidance and system updates and will provide additional information as it becomes available.

If you would like assistance reviewing entries, confirming Importer of Record status, assessing CUSMA qualification, or evaluating tariff exposure, please contact your JORI representative.

Kind regards,

JORI Logistics
Customs  Support Team
customs@jorilogistics.com