{"id":901,"date":"2026-03-22T11:43:49","date_gmt":"2026-03-22T18:43:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/?p=901"},"modified":"2026-03-22T11:52:06","modified_gmt":"2026-03-22T18:52:06","slug":"trump-seeks-alternatives-after-supreme-court-tariff-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/trump-seeks-alternatives-after-supreme-court-tariff-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Seeks Alternatives After Supreme Court Tariff Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t

By<\/strong> Kailea Weitz
<\/strong><\/em>ASU Law Fellow<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t

The Supreme Court\u2019s February 2026 ruling<\/a> was not the end of Trump-era tariffs. It held only that IEEPA could not support the President\u2019s \u201creciprocal\u201d and \u201cfentanyl\u201d tariffs. Express tariff authorities remained undisturbed, including the Trade Act of 1974 Sections 122, 201, and 301, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 <\/span>Section 232,<\/a> and the Tariff Act of 1930 <\/span>Sections 337<\/a> and 338, with many being explored by the Administration. Several require <\/span>investigations<\/a> and findings to<\/span><\/p>\n

impose. Section 232 addresses imports threatening national security; Section 337 targets unfairly competitive import methods injuring \u201cdomestic industries\u201d, typically in intellectual property disputes; and <\/span>Section 301<\/a> retaliatory authority provides imposing authority to retaliate against \u201cunreasonable\u201d and \u201cunjustifiable\u201d policies and measures that burden U.S. commerce.<\/span><\/p>\n

President Trump\u2019s response was immediate. On the day of the ruling, the White House<\/a> issued an order<\/a> terminating ad valorem<\/em> duties imposed under IEEPA, but he expressly preserved those imposed under Sections 232 and 301 and imposing a 10% ad valorem tariff for 150 days under Sec 122. Plans for several 337<\/a> and 301 investigations<\/a> were announced, and existing 232 and 301 tariffs on China,<\/a> among others, including on steel (50%), aluminum (50%), semiconductors<\/a> (25%), timber\/lumber<\/a> (10%), vehicles (25%), and copper<\/a> (50%), remain in<\/a> place.<\/a><\/p>\n

It is not surprising that the Administration, having lost one authority for import duties, immediately pivoted to the others identified by the Court, a decision already triggering new litigation. Two dozen states<\/a> have filed suit challenging<\/a> Trump\u2019s use of Sec 122, arguing<\/a> no statute requirements are met. Both Democratic representatives (H.R.2459<\/a>) and senators<\/a> have introduced the \u201cReclaim Trade<\/a> Powers Act<\/a>\u201d to repeal Sec 122, along with a bill to shield small businesses from Trump\u2019s tariffs more broadly (S.1593<\/a>\/H.R.3986<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the refund consequences<\/a> of the Supreme Court\u2019s IEEPA ruling are substantial. On March 4, 2026, Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade ordered CBP<\/a> to liquidate or reliquidate entries without regard to IEEPA duties. As the judge assigned to IEEPA refund cases, his statement that \u201call importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled\u201d to <\/span>seek refunds<\/a> is significant. CBP <\/span>will reportedly use an online portal<\/a> for claims. Senate Democratic Leader Schumer is <\/span>urging companies<\/a> to pass anticipated savings onto consumers when approximately <\/span>$175 billion in refunds<\/a> is received. Consumer class actions <\/span>involving <\/span>Costco,<\/a> <\/span>FedEx,<\/a> and <\/span>Ray-Ban<\/a> have already been filed. As more than 2,000 companies file lawsuits to recoup tariff payments, more  consumer suits seeking to prevent \u201cdouble <\/span>recovery\u201d will surely follow, particularly against companies that imposed itemized tariff charges.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, one small business<\/a> has publicly been advocating for a different approach by proactively and automatically refunding customers. For consumers, importers, states, and trade lawyers, the next litigation relates to which import duties adopted under other statutes will survive judicial review, and <\/span>how quickly<\/a> unlawfully collected duties can (and will) be refunded. Given the Republicans inactivity in Congress, it appears that Republicans wish to surrender their importation taxation authority to Trump. If their appetite for doing the same for a Democrat President is less certain, they do not appear to believe they will be bound by their own precedents.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Kailea WeitzASU Law Fellow The Supreme Court\u2019s February 2026 ruling was not the end of Trump-era tariffs. It held only that IEEPA could not support the President\u2019s \u201creciprocal\u201d and \u201cfentanyl\u201d tariffs. Express tariff authorities remained undisturbed, including the Trade Act of 1974 Sections 122, 201, and 301, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 Section 232, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":106,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[228,227,233,177,95],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/901"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/106"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=901"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/901\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":911,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/901\/revisions\/911"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}