21st February 2026 - IEEPA Tariffs Invalidated: Section 122 Measures Increased to 15 Percent

Following the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating IEEPA tariff authority, the U.S. administration has announced changes to tariff levels under alternative statutory authority.

On 21 February 2026, it was reported that the global tariff rate previously established under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 has been increased to 15 percent. This action reflects the maximum rate permitted under the Section 122 framework, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent for a limited duration, subject to statutory requirements. There is currently no specific implementation date provided for the revised tariff rate, and formal administrative guidance has not yet been issued regarding its application or timing.

As with prior developments, operational details, including procedures for customs processing and potential implications for importers, will depend on the publication of authoritative instructions by the relevant U.S. agencies.

20th February 2026 - U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of IEEPA Tariff Authority

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorise the imposition of tariffs, even during a declared national emergency.

The Court reaffirmed the constitutional principle that tariffs constitute a form of taxation and that the authority to impose them rests with Congress. General statutory language permitting regulation of imports was found insufficient to support sweeping tariff measures of significant economic impact.

As a result, tariffs imposed under IEEPA to address drug trafficking and trade deficits have been invalidated.

What the Court Addressed

The Court held that:

• IEEPA does not provide statutory authority to impose tariffs
• The Federal Circuit’s judgment striking down the tariffs was affirmed
• The ruling resolves the question of legal authority only

The decision addresses whether the tariffs were lawfully enacted. It does not determine the practical or administrative consequences flowing from the ruling.

What the Court Did Not Address

The judgment does not:

• Order or discuss refunds
• Direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to take specific administrative action
• Provide guidance on reliquidation procedures
• Determine the treatment of protests
• Rule on retroactivity or remedies

Implementation remains subject to administrative interpretation and further guidance.

What Happens Now

Until U.S. Customs and Border Protection issues formal implementation guidance, IEEPA tariffs will continue to be applied to U.S. entries. This ruling represents an important legal step, but it does not immediately alter operational procedures at the border.

Importers should therefore assume that current entry processes and duty applications remain unchanged unless and until CBP publishes specific administrative instructions.

Refund Considerations

The decision does not automatically create entitlement to refunds.

Whether duties may be recoverable will depend on individual entry circumstances, including:

• Entry status, whether liquidated or unliquidated
• Whether timely protests were filed
• Applicable statutory limitation periods
• Administrative guidance issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Until formal direction is provided, entitlement to recovery cannot be assumed.

Foreign Importers of Record

Questions have arisen regarding the position of foreign importers of record. At present, no specific administrative guidance has been issued addressing eligibility following the ruling.

As with all potential refund considerations, outcomes are likely to depend on:

• The importer of record listed on the entry
• Duty payment records
• Procedural standing under U.S. customs law
• Administrative interpretation of the Court’s decision

Further clarification will be required before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Alternative Statutory Authorities

The Supreme Court’s decision does not bring tariff policy to an end; rather, it redirects the legal basis upon which such measures may be implemented.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 is widely viewed as a potential short-term mechanism. It expressly authorises the President to impose temporary import surcharges to address serious balance-of-payments concerns. Key features include:

• Tariffs of up to 15 percent ad valorem
• A maximum duration of 150 days
• Any extension requiring an Act of Congress
• No investigation required prior to imposition

Because Section 122 explicitly authorises the imposition of duties and includes defined statutory limits, it provides clear legal authority for temporary action. It may therefore function as an interim measure while longer-term options are considered.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides authority for country-specific tariffs following investigation and determination of unfair trade practices by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Although the process is more procedurally intensive and slower to implement, measures adopted under Section 301 may remain in place for extended periods once established. Section 122 or other tools could serve as a transitional mechanism while Section 301 investigations proceed.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorises tariffs based on national security determinations by the Department of Commerce. While narrower in scope than the previously invoked emergency authority, Section 232 has undergone extensive judicial review and remains an established statutory framework for sector-specific measures, including steel, aluminium, and automotive products.

While the Court’s ruling limits the use of IEEPA as a source of tariff authority, established trade statutes continue to provide structured and legally defined pathways for tariff implementation.

Update: Administration Announces Section 122 Tariff Action

Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s ruling, President Donald Trump announced that his administration intends to implement a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a replacement mechanism for the invalidated IEEPA tariffs.

During a White House press briefing, the President indicated that an executive order would be signed to impose the temporary tariff measure under Section 122, in addition to existing tariff structures.

The administration further indicated that additional investigations may be initiated under Section 301 and other statutory authorities concerning unfair trade practices.

At the time of publication, formal executive documentation and implementation guidance have not yet been released. The operational timing, scope, and administrative process for this measure will depend on the issuance of official instructions.

Ongoing Monitoring

Given the potential commercial implications, particularly regarding duty recovery and future tariff policy, Woodland Group continues to monitor developments closely.

This news feed will remain the primary source of structured updates and technical analysis as administrative guidance, agency implementation measures, or further legislative developments emerge.

If you require guidance on the potential impact of this ruling on your imports, refund exposure, importer of record status, or broader tariff strategy, we encourage you to contact a member of the Woodland Group team for tailored support and advice.

30th May 2025 - Ongoing Legal Developments

CIT Ruling and Appeal: On May 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a landmark decision, ruling that the IEEPA tariffs (including the Fentanyl and Reciprocal tariffs) were unlawful and exceeded the President's authority. The CIT ordered these tariffs to be revoked.

CAFC Grants Temporary Stay: The U.S. Government promptly filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and requested a stay of the CIT's order. As of May 29, 2025, the CAFC has granted this temporary stay. This means that the CIT's order to revoke the tariffs is currently paused.

District Court Ruling: In a separate, parallel case, a District Court for the District of Columbia also ruled on May 29, 2025, that IEEPA does not authorise the President to impose tariffs and granted a preliminary injunction for the two plaintiffs in that specific case. This ruling is also subject to an appeal by the government.

Jurisdictional Battle Continues: As of today, we have two courts (the CIT and the District Court) that have issued rulings on the IEEPA tariffs, each with their own implications, and the appellate courts are now involved in resolving these complex jurisdictional questions. The ultimate determination of which court holds jurisdiction and whose orders will prevail is still to be seen.

What This Means for Importers and Customs Brokers – Tariffs Remain in Place for Now:

Continued Tariff Collection: Due to the temporary stay granted by the CAFC, tariffs under the IEEPA will continue to be collected for the time being. Importers should continue to pay these tariffs as usual. The CAFC is expected to act quickly to consider the government's request for a longer-term stay.

Potential Refunds: While the CIT's ruling offers the potential for refunds of duties paid on these IEEPA tariffs (retroactive to their initial application dates, either February 4 or April 5), no refunds will be processed until all court issues are resolved and final decisions are made.

Action Required: Track and Document Entries: Woodland Group is committed to supporting our clients. Where we act as your broker, we will proactively track and document entries on which IEEPA tariffs were paid. This includes closely monitoring the expected liquidation date and the 180-day window for filing a protest. By maintaining this essential data, we aim to identify and act on potential opportunities for Post Summary Corrections (PSCs) for non-liquidated entries or protests for liquidated entries, helping you pursue potential refunds whenever they become necessary.

Contact Our Brokerage for Assistance:

We understand this is a confusing and uncertain time, and the situation is truly changing day by day. Our dedicated brokerage team is here to support you through these developments.

For any questions regarding your specific entries or the implications of these ongoing legal developments, please don't hesitate to contact your usual Woodland Group representative or our customs brokerage team directly.

Regarding protest filings or other formal actions, you can rest assured that we will proactively provide you with further guidance on when and how to initiate these steps as the legal landscape becomes clearer and if it becomes necessary to protect your refund eligibility. We're monitoring these developments very closely to ensure you receive timely and relevant updates.


Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It should not be used as a substitute for reviewing applicable U.S. laws or regulations, or for consulting with qualified legal counsel. This content reflects our interpretation and understanding of the subject matter at the time of publication and may not reflect the most current legal developments.