SCOTUS strikes down IEEPA tariffs; President Trump expected to pivot to proven trade laws like 232 and 301

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs, holding that the law’s language to “regulate… importation” does not encompass tariffs or duties, as it lacks explicit authorization for such revenue-raising measures.

The decision applies only to IEEPA-based tariffs (invalidating a significant portion of those imposed since April 2025), leaving other statutory authorities intact and emphasizing that Congress must clearly delegate tariff powers with limits and procedures.

Trump administration officials have indicated they plan to pivot to these alternatives to reinstate or impose similar tariffs.

UPDATE: 1:45pm ET

President Trump has responded to the SCOTUS ruling via TRUTH Social:
‎

The Supreme Court’s Ruling on TARIFFS is deeply disappointing! I am ashamed of certain Members of the Court for not having the Courage to do what is right for our Country. I would like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for your Strength, Wisdom, and Love of our Country, which is right now very proud of you. When you read the dissenting opinions, there is no way that anyone can argue against them. Foreign Countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic, and dancing in the streets — But they won’t be dancing for long! The Democrats on the Court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote “NO” against ANYTHING that makes America Strong and Healthy Again. They, also, are a Disgrace to our Nation. Others think they’re being “politically correct,” which has happened before, far too often, with certain Members of this Court when, in fact, they’re just FOOLS and “LAPDOGS” for the RINOS and Radical Left Democrats and, not that this should have anything to do with it, very unpatriotic, and disloyal to the Constitution. It is my opinion that the Court has been swayed by Foreign Interests, and a Political Movement that is far smaller than people would think — But obnoxious, ignorant, and loud!

This was an important case to me, more as a symbol of Economic and National Security, than anything else. The Good News is that there are methods, practices, Statutes, and other Authorities, as recognized by the entire Court and Congress, that are even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President of the United States of America and, in actuality, I was very modest in my “ask” of other Countries and Businesses because I wanted to do nothing that could sway the decision that has been rendered by the Court.

I have very effectively utilized TARIFFS over the past year to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Our Stock Market has just recently broken the 50,000 mark on the DOW and, simultaneously, 7,000 on the S&P, two numbers that everybody thought, upon our Landslide Election Victory, could not be attained until the very end of my Administration — Four years! TARIFFS have, likewise, been used to end five of the eight Wars that I settled, have given us Great National Security and, together with our Strong Border, reduced Fentanyl coming into our Country by 30%, when I use them as a penalty against Countries illegally sending this poison to us. All of those TARIFFS remain, but other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the Court incorrectly rejected.

To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, the Court said that I’m not allowed to charge even $1 DOLLAR to any Country under IEEPA, I assume to protect other Countries, not the United States which they should be interested in protecting — But I am allowed to cut off any and all Trade or Business with that same Country, even imposing a Foreign Country destroying embargo, and do anything else I want to do to them — How nonsensical is that? They are saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee. What license has ever been issued without the right to charge a fee? But now the Court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our Country, a much more powerful Right than many people thought we had.

Our Country is the “HOTTEST” anywhere in the World, but now, I am going in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice. As Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his Dissent:

“Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs issued in this case…Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338).”

Thank you Justice Kavanaugh!

In actuality, while I am sure they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a President’s ability to both regulate Trade, and impose TARIFFS, more powerful and crystal clear, rather than less. There will no longer be any doubt, and the Income coming in, and the protection of our Companies and Country, will actually increase because of this decision. Based on longstanding Law and Hundreds of Victories to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS. The ability to block, embargo, restrict, license, or impose any other condition on a Foreign Country’s ability to conduct Trade with the United States under IEEPA, has been fully confirmed by this decision. In order to protect our Country, a President can actually charge more TARIFFS than I was charging in the past under the various other TARIFF authorities, which have also been confirmed, and fully allowed.

Therefore, effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged, and we are also initiating several Section 301 and other Investigations to protect our Country from unfair Trading practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

"Effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being… pic.twitter.com/B3bv5f5KW1

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 20, 2026

Here are the primary legal pathways available, based on existing trade laws:

1. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862)

Allows the President to impose tariffs or quotas on imports that threaten national security, following an investigation by the Department of Commerce (often involving the Department of Defense).

Trump used this extensively in his first term (e.g., on steel and aluminum) and has already applied it to sectors like automobiles, semiconductors, and timber in his current term, with ongoing probes into critical minerals, drones, and robotics.

No explicit rate caps, but actions must be tied to security findings; upheld by the Court in prior cases like Algonquin SNG, Inc. v. Federal Energy Administration (1976).

Investigations typically take 270 days but can be expedited.

Potential: Broad applicability, but requires evidence of security threats, opening it to legal challenges if overly expansive.

2. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §2411)

Authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to impose tariffs in response to foreign countries’ unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory trade practices that burden U.S. commerce.

Commonly used against China (e.g., for IP theft), with current investigations into China’s semiconductors, shipbuilding, and logistics sectors.

Explicitly allows “duties or other import restrictions.”

Process involves investigations (up to 12 months), consultations, and public hearings; no fixed rate limits, but actions must be proportionate.

Potential: Flexible for targeted retaliatory tariffs, but time-consuming and subject to WTO disputes or domestic lawsuits if procedures are skipped.

3. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §2251)

Provides “safeguard” tariffs or quotas to protect domestic industries from surges in imports causing serious injury, regardless of fairness.

Requires an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation (up to 120-150 days) and findings of injury; tariffs can last up to 4 years initially, with extensions.

Explicitly references “duties” and includes safeguards like hearings.

Used sparingly (e.g., by Bush on steel in 2002).

Potential: Useful for broad import relief, but limited to injury-based cases and often leads to foreign retaliation.

4. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §2132)

Permits temporary import surcharges (tariffs) to address large, persistent balance-of-payments deficits or to prevent imminent dollar depreciation.

Capped at 15% and limited to 150 days without congressional approval; no investigation required.

Used by Nixon in 1971 (10% surcharge).

Potential: Quick to implement for short-term relief, but restrictive duration and scope could invite challenges if deficits aren’t clearly demonstrated.

5. Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1338)

Authorizes duties up to 50% on imports from countries imposing unreasonable burdens or discriminations against U.S. commerce, if targeted at the U.S.

No investigation needed, but untested (never invoked).

Potential: Broad for reciprocal actions, but high risk of litigation due to vagueness and lack of precedent.

6. Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930)

Administered by Commerce and ITC to counter dumped (below-fair-value) or subsidized imports causing material injury.

Case-by-case, product-specific; rates calculated based on margins (no fixed caps).

Process: Petitions from industry, investigations (up to 280 days), but can be self-initiated by Commerce.

Potential: Effective for targeted protections, but slower and narrower than broad tariffs.

7. Congressional Legislation

Trump could seek new laws from Congress to explicitly authorize tariffs (e.g., via the Reciprocal Trade Act, proposed in his first term).

No procedural hurdles from the executive side, but requires bipartisan support in a divided Congress.

Potential: Most durable option, but politically challenging and time-intensive.

These alternatives generally require more procedural steps (e.g., investigations, evidence) than IEEPA, potentially delaying implementation by months, and could face new legal challenges under doctrines like major questions or nondelegation.

The ruling may lead to refunds for invalidated IEEPA tariffs (estimated at $175+ billion in revenue at risk), but the administration could offset losses by accelerating alternatives or offering credits instead.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Reuters in January that the Treasury can easily cover any tariff refund. Trump administration officials told Reuters that they would switch to alternative tariff authorities to restore tariffs if the Supreme Court struck down IEEPA tariffs.

MacDailyNews Take: Overall, this shifts tariff policy, potentially moderating broad economic impacts while allowing more targeted measures by President Trump.

---

‎
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!

Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.