Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: What Florida Importers and Exporters Need to Know Now

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a seismic ruling on February 20, 2026, holding 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Acts (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump invalidates the sweeping tariffs President Trump imposed beginning in early 2025, which have cost U.S. businesses more than $133 billion in duties to date.

For Florida businesses engaged in international trade, the ruling raises urgent questions: Can you recover the tariffs you already paid? What new tariffs are replacing the old ones? And, what steps should your company take right now to protect its financial interests? In this article, we break down the ruling, the emerging refund litigation landscape, and the practical steps importers and exporters should take immediately.

What did the Supreme Court Actually Decide?

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and the Court’s holding was unambiguous: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose sweeping tariffs.

The Court’s reasoning rested on two principal grounds. First, the text and structure of IEEPA does not delegate a tariff- or tax-imposing power to the president. The statute authorizes the president to “regulate . . . importation,” but it never mentions “tariffs” or “duties,” and the government could point to any example where Congress used generic “regulate” language to confer taxing authority. 

Second, tariffs fall within Congress’s Article I taxing power, not the president’s general foreign-affairs or economic-regulation authority. Because tariffs function as taxes on imported goods, the decision to impose them is a core legislative function that cannot be treated as a mere side-effect of a broad regulatory delegation to the president without a clear, express grant of taxing authority.

Tariffs are a “branch of the taxing power” and therefore categorically different from other economic regulatory tools, like quotas and embargoes, which Congress has previously delegated to the president. The Court found that if “regulate . . . importation” were read broadly enough to include the power to tax, IEEPA, enacted in 1977, would effectively grant the president unilateral control over a central element of the federal tax system—something the Constitution reserves exclusively to Congress and that Congress has always addressed through explicit, carefully drawn tariff statutes. 

Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Justice Kavanaugh authored a 63-page dissent contended that there is no meaningful legal distinction between authorizing the president to “regulate . . . importation” under IEEPA and allowing him to “adjust . . . imports” under other long-accepted trade statutes, and warned that the majority’s narrower reading risks undercutting established precedents sustaining other broad presidential discretion in managing foreign commerce and national-security driven trade measures. 

Which Tariffs Were Invalidated?

The ruling specifically invalidates the tariffs the administration had imposed under IEEPA authority. Those measures included:

• Fentanyl-related tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexica, and China, imposed beginning February 2025;
• Reciprocal tariffs on imports from 57 countries, expanded in April 2025; and
• Escalating tariffs on Chinese goods, which ultimately reached an effective rate of 145%.
  • It is equally important to be clear about what the decision does not disturb. Tariffs imposed under other statutory authorities remain in full force, including:
• Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, copper, and automobiles;
• Section 301 tariffs targeting Chinese trade practices;
• Section 201 safeguard tariffs; and
• Antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders.

For businesses paying duties under these other authorities, tariff obligations are unchanged by the Supreme Court’s decision.

The $133 Billion Refund Question

Perhaps the most consequential unanswered question from the ruling is: What happens to the money already collected? U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) collected more than $133 billion in IEEPA tariffs as of mid-December 2025, and estimates now put potential refund exposure as high as $175 billion. The Supreme Court did not address refunds, did not order restitution, and did not establish a refund mechanism, leaving it to importers to pursue recovery through litigation rather than administrative relief.

For Florida businesses that depend on international trade, that uncertainty is a call to action, not a reason to wait. Those companies should begin auditing their tariff exposure, taking steps to preserve potential refund rights, and planning for the new tariff regime that is replacing the one the Court struck down. Businesses that move quickly will be best positioned both to recover what they can through the emerging wave of refund-litigation and to adapt to the next set of imposed tariffs.

Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent warned that the refund process is likely to be a “mess,” and President Trump has stated that refunds “will be litigated,” underscoring that there will be no easy, voluntary refund program. While the Court gave no answer to how refunds should be administered, it did confirm that any fight over that “very large pot of money” will run through the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York, which has exclusive jurisdiction over IEEPA tarif challenges—meaning importers who want their money back must be prepared to litigate in that specialized forum rather than in their local federal district courts.

Companies are already filing suit. A wave of refund litigation has already begun:

• Costco filed suit in the CIT in December 2025, even before the Supreme Court ruled, seeking a “full refund” of all IEEPA tariffs paid. Costco argued that its imports could begin entering “liquidation” – a customs process that permanently closes the door on refunds – and that it needs to act immediately to preserve its rights.
• Toyota subsidiaries filed in November 2025, citing the same liquidation deadline concerns.
• Alcoa, one of the world’s top aluminum producers, filed in November 2025 in a case that was consolidated with AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. United States Customs and Border Protection.
• Goodyear Tire & Rubber filed in December 2025, detailing how tariffs on Chinese goods—which changed nearly a dozen times—impacted its supply chain.
• BYD, the Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer, filed in February 2026, marking the first suit by a Chinese carmaker against the IEEPA tariffs.
• FedEx filed on February 23, 2026—three days after the Supreme Court ruling—seeking a full refund of all tariffs paid plus interest and compensation for financial harm incurred in expediting shipments through customs.
  • These cases represent just the tip of the iceberg. Trade attorneys expect thousands of importers to file refund claims in the coming months.

Why the Liquidation Deadline Matters

For importers who have not yet filed suit, the liquidation timeline is the most urgent concern. Under U.S. customs law, duties paid undergo a process called “liquidation” within approximately one year of the entry of the goods. Once liquidation occurs, the entry becomes final and recovering overpaid or unlawfully assessed duties become significantly more difficult. 

Companies like Costco, Toyota, and Alcoa filed their lawsuits months before the Supreme Court ruling precisely because they understood that waiting for a definitive ruling could mean losing the ability to recover millions in tariff payments. Importers who have not taken steps to preserve their refund rights risk having their entries permanently liquidated—effectively forfeiting any claim to a refund.

Action Item: If your company paid IEEPA tariffs on goods imported into the United States, you should immediately consult with trade counsel to determine whether any of your entries are approaching liquidation and whether protective action is necessary.

New Tariffs Under Section 122: What Replaced the IEEPA Levies

The ink was barely dry on the Supreme Court’s opinion before President Trump signed a proclamation imposing replacement tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Here is what businesses need to know:

• Rate: The initial 10% tariff was raised to 15% the following day.
• Effect Date: February 24, 2026.
• Duration: Section 122 tariffs may remain in place for 150 days—until July 24, 2026—unless extended by an act of Congress. This is a critical distinction from the IEEPA tariffs, which had no statutory time limit.
• Exemptions: The proclamation exempts 13 categories of products, largely mirroring previous IEEPA and Section 232 exemptions. Section 122 duties do not stack on top of existing Section 232 duties. For steel, aluminum, and copper derivative products, Section 122 duties apply only to the non-metal content. However, there is no exemption for U.S. content under the Section 122 tariffs, unlike the prior IEEPA framework.

Additionally, the administration has launched multiple new Section 301 investigations targeting a wide range of trading partners and issues on an accelerated timeframe, and the Bureau of Industry and Security has numerous active Section 232 investigations spanning industries beyond steel and aluminum. These investigations could result in additional sector-specific tariffs in the coming months.

The Bottom Line: While the IEEPA tariffs are gone, the tariff landscape is not returning to pre-2025 conditions. Businesses should expect continued tariff activity under authorities the Supreme Court did not disturb.

Impact on Florida Businesses

Florida’s economy is deeply intertwined with international trade. The state’s ports—including PortMiami, Port Everglades, Port Tampa Bay, and JAXPORT—handle billions of dollars in imports annually. Industries ranging from construction and agriculture to automotive and consumer goods depends on imported materials and products.

The Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent policy changes create both opportunities and risks for Florida businesses: 

Opportunities:

• Companies that paid IEEPA tariffs may be eligible for substantial refunds, potentially improving cash flow and profitability.
• The 150-day statutory cap on Section 122 tariffs provides greater predictability than the open-ended IEEPA framework, allowing businesses to plan with more confidence for the second half of 2026.

Risks:

• The refund process is expected to be lengthy and complex. Trade attorneys estimate it could take 12 to 18 months—or longer—for refunds to be issued. 
• The administration’s pivot to Section 301 and Section 232 investigations signals that new, potentially higher tariffs could be imposed on specific sectors.
• The on-again, off-again nature of U.S. tariff policy continues to create uncertainty that makes long-term planning difficult for businesses reliant on global supply chains.

What Importers and Exporters Should Do Now

Given the rapidly evolving trade landscape, businesses engaged in international trade should take the following steps immediately:

1. Audit Your Tariff Exposure

Review all duties paid under IEEPA authority since February 2025. Identify the total amount paid, the customs entries involved, and the liquidation status of each entry. This audit is the foundation for any refund claim and should be completed as soon as possible.

2. Preserve Your Refund Rights

Consult with experienced trade counsel to determine whether you need to file a protective action in the Court of International Trade before your entries are liquidated. The government has shown no indication that it will voluntarily issue refunds, and importers who wait may lose their claims entirely.

3. Evaluate Your Exposure to Replacement Tariffs

Determine how the new 15% Section 122 tariffs affect your imported goods. Identify whether any of your products fall within the 13 exempt categories and assess whether existing Section 232 or Section 301 tariffs already apply to your imports.

4. Review and Update Supply Chain Contracts

Examine your agreements with foreign suppliers, domestic customers, and logistics providers. Assess how tariff changes affect pricing terms, delivery obligations, and risk allocation. Consider whether force majeure, price adjustment, or tariff pass-through provisions need to be renegotiated in light of the current environment.

5. Monitor Legislative and Regulatory Developments

The Section 122 tariffs expire in 150 days unless Congress acts to extend them. The administration is also pursuing new Section 301 and Section 232 investigations that could result in additional tariffs. Staying current on these developments is essential for informed business planning.

6. Document Everything

Maintain detailed records of all tariff payments, customs entries, correspondence with CBP, supply chain disruptions, and cost impacts. Thorough documentation strengthens refund claims and protects your company’s interests in potential litigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump is a watershed moment for U.S. trade law. For the first time, the Court has definitively held that IEEPA—a statute invoked to impose the broadest tariffs in modern American history—does not authorize the president to levy import duties. The ruling opens the door for billions of dollars in potential refunds, but recovering that money will require prompt, strategic legal action.

At the same time, the tariff landscape remains volatile. The administration’s immediate pivot to Section 122 tariffs and expanded Section 301 and Section 232 investigations means that businesses cannot afford to treat the Supreme Court ruling as the end of the story. It is one chapter in what will be a prolonged period of trade policy uncertainty.

Florida businesses that depend on international trade should act now—audit their tariff exposure, preserve their refund rights, and prepare for the tariff regime that is replacing the one the Supreme Court struck down. The companies that take proactive steps today will be best positioned to recover losses and navigate whatever comes next.

If your business paid IEEPA tariffs and you are considering seeking a refund, or if you need guidance on how the new Section 122 tariffs and ongoing trade investigations affect your operations, our team is here to help. Our attorneys understand the complexities of international trade compliance and can provide the strategic counsel you need during this rapidly changing regulatory environment. Contact us to schedule a confidential consultation.