U.S. Tariffs shift as Court curbs IEEPA; 232, 301 loom

SCOTUS voided IEEPA tariffs; administration pivoting to trade statutes

The Supreme Court ruled that the president overstepped by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to order double-digit tariffs on nearly all U.S. imports, as reported by NPR. The decision effectively dismantles the broad, emergency-based tariff architecture that had been applied across product categories.

The setback is significant for the White House’s trade posture, which relied on IEEPA to move quickly and at scale; many of the tariffs imposed last year were struck down, according to AP News. The legal reset narrows the toolbox to trade-specific statutes that require more defined procedures and agency findings before duties can be reimposed.

Even with the IEEPA pathway closed, the administration retains alternatives through existing trade laws, as reported by The Atlantic. Those options concentrate authority within agencies such as the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the U.S. Department of Commerce, and could target narrower sectors than the invalidated, across-the-board measures.

What changes for businesses now: refunds, compliance, and pricing risk

Importers are evaluating whether duties paid under IEEPA-linked rates can be recovered through standard customs processes where applicable. Any refund path will likely depend on agency guidance and case-specific documentation, and timing remains uncertain.

Compliance teams are revisiting landed-cost models, supplier quotes, and HS code mappings in case targeted tariffs reappear under other authorities. Monitoring USTR and Commerce dockets may help companies anticipate coverage, country scope, and potential exclusion procedures before prices are reset.

The policy pivot has been publicly signaled at the highest level. President Donald Trump said, “other alternatives will now be used to replace” the struck-down tariffs.

Pricing risk remains elevated because fallback statutes are more targeted and procedural, which can shift which SKUs are affected and when. Retailers and importers are revisiting contract language on tariff pass-throughs and timing triggers to reduce mid-quarter margin shocks.

Fallback tools: Section 232, Section 301, and Section 122

Sections 232/301/122: scope, timelines, and agency roles (USTR, Commerce)

According to Bloomberg, the administration’s post-IEEPA options include Section 232, Section 301, and Section 122. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 ties tariffs to national security determinations led by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 empowers USTR to investigate unfair trade practices and recommend remedies following an administrative record. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows temporary, across-the-board import surcharges for limited periods, making it procedurally faster but generally shorter in duration than 232 or 301.

What importers and retailers should do now

Companies are maintaining audit trails of entries and duties, modeling contingencies for 232/301/122 scenarios, and aligning supplier terms to reflect potential re-imposition windows. Many are sequencing price updates to balance inventory on hand with prospective coverage scopes, while tracking USTR and Commerce announcements for signals on product lists, country scope, and process steps.

At the time of this writing, Apple Inc. (AAPL) traded at 261.40, up 0.31% intraday, based on data from NasdaqGS. Broader equity moves are a limited guide for item-level pricing, which will hinge on whether, and how quickly, tariffs reemerge under these statutes.