On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in the Learning Resources case, concluding that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration since February 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unauthorized. The Court’s landmark 6-3 decision produced seven separate opinions with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in the majority, holding that “the power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope” required “clear congressional authorization.” This decision affirmed earlier Federal Circuit and Court of International Trade (CIT) rulings rejecting the President’s authority to impose both the “fentanyl-related” (or “trafficking”) tariffs applied to products of China, Canada, and Mexico and the “reciprocal” tariffs applied to products of U.S. trading partners since “Liberation Day” back in April 2025. Notably, the Court’s opinion did not address the availability of or timing for any refunds owed to importers who have already paid the fentanyl-related and reciprocal tariffs.

Shortly after the ruling, the Trump administration issued an Executive Order directing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to rescind these tariffs, which CBP implemented on February 24, 2026. Contemporaneously, the Trump administration also implemented a new, global 10 percent tariff under an alternative legal authority provided in Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Like the reciprocal tariffs it replaces, this 10 percent Section 122 tariff applies to an expansive set of imports from almost all U.S. trading partners, albeit with certain enumerated items excepted.

Implications of the Ruling: Tariff Comings and Goings

The tariffs adjudicated in the Supreme Court’s ruling, and which were subsequently rescinded by CBP, are:

• the fentanyl-related, or trafficking, tariffs imposed on almost all imports from China, Canada, and Mexico since February 2025 (ad valorem duties of 10 to 35 percent, with a notable exception for goods qualifying for duty-free entry under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)); and
• the reciprocal tariffs imposed on almost all U.S. trading partners since April 2025 (ad valorem duties of 10 percent, with higher country-specific amounts for certain trading partners, including those rates finalized pursuant to bilateral deals between the U.S. and the EU, UK, Japan, South Korea, China, India, Taiwan, and other major trading partners).

The ruling does not address or affect duties imposed under alternative, non-IEEPA authorizations, which will continue uninterrupted and unaffected. We expect further clarity from the CIT, where thousands of stayed cases seeking tariff refunds are expected to shortly resume, and/or further instruction from CBP as it continues to implement the Court’s ruling and the Trump administration’s response to the ruling.

As noted above, the Trump administration has begun collecting tariffs under alternative legal authorities not affected by the Court’s recent decision. For example, President Trump issued a presidential proclamation directing the imposition of tariffs under authorities provided under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 122 authorizes the President to impose import surcharges of up to 15 percent for a 150-day period to address balance-of-payments issues. As of February 24, 2026, CBP has implemented a 10 percent Section 122 tariff, though President Trump has announced an intention for this tariff to be increased to the 15 percent statutory maximum relatively soon.

Beyond the Section 122 measures, the Trump administration has also indicated it may soon begin initiating additional Section 301 investigations into unfair trading practices adopted by other foreign countries, a step preceding potential Section 301 tariff actions on countries targeted by those investigations. For example, Section 301 tariffs have recently been used to impose significant new tariffs on imports of solar panels, electric vehicles, and other items from China, and a broad array of goods from Brazil. The Trump administration also communicated its intent to continue to heavily use Section 232 authorities to implement industry-specific tariffs. Section 232 tariffs have already been implemented with respect to the steel, aluminum, automobile, and lumber industries, and a number of investigations related to pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, industrial robots, and other industries’ imports remain ongoing.

Moreover, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the validity and stability of recent bilateral U.S. trade deals reached with key trading partners, most of which were negotiated based on tariff leverage substantially reduced by the Court’s decision. These bilateral U.S. trade deals, including with China, the European Union, Switzerland, India, Japan, South Korea, and the UK, may now be vulnerable to disruption and begin to unsettle tariff rates that appeared to be on track to be settled. Accordingly, importers and exporters benefitting from terms negotiated in these deals are urged to tread cautiously as counterparties continue to process the full ramifications of the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Is Anyone Getting Refunds?

Importantly, the Supreme Court’s ruling did not mandate or prescribe any refunds or other relief for the parties who initiated the tariff-related litigation, nor for other importers who were affected by the IEEPA tariffs. The case now goes back to the CIT on remand, which will now begin to resume cases that had been stayed pending the ruling from the Supreme Court. One or more of these forthcoming CIT decisions may indicate whether, how, or when similarly situated importers may be able to obtain relief. It is possible that importers will ultimately need to pursue a CIT case to seek a refund of duties paid.

CBP could also issue guidance indicating that affected importers have the option to file post-summary corrections (for unliquidated entries) or file protests challenging the liquidation of entries (for liquidated entries), in both instances to correct entries for which fentanyl-related (trafficking) or reciprocal tariffs were collected. Generally, entries are liquidated by operation of law 314 days after the date of import, meaning most imports other than the earliest entries affected by the 10 percent fentanyl-related (trafficking) tariffs placed on products of China in February 2025 may be yet unliquidated. Accordingly, these entries may be eligible to be updated through routine administrative procedures.

However, there is no guarantee that CBP will permit or process such changes, and currently no indication that it will imminently permit importers to do so absent instruction from the CIT or a superior court. Perhaps previewing the Trump administration's intended path forward, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer indicated in televised comments earlier this week that the administration may be deferring to “the court to tell us what to do” regarding any possible refunds.

What Should We Do Now?

We recommend importers and other affected parties take steps to analyze and manage their legal risks, including by taking some or all of the following measures:

• First, while there is substantial overlap in the items that have been exempted from the Section 122 tariffs and those that were exempted from some of the earlier IEEPA tariffs, note that the list of exempted items is not identical. Accordingly, importers should closely review their specific imports to determine whether they are now newly or differently affected by the recent tariff orders.
• Importers may also want to closely review their particular duty exposure to determine the amount and timeline of fentanyl-related (trafficking) and reciprocal tariffs paid under the previously imposed regime. This information may be helpful to determine optimal legal strategy with regard to the affected entries, including 1) timelines to liquidation, 2) timelines to when protests or other administrative remedies may expire, and 3) the amount of duties paid in connection with entries that are or may soon be liquidating or facing expiration of administrative remedies. In certain situations, it may be advisable to file a protective suit in the CIT to better preserve or accelerate any rights to obtain a refund.
• Importers are also encouraged to familiarize themselves with the new tariff regime and may want to explore opportunities to optimize their supply chains and mitigate tariff exposure. Leveraging special entry tariff provisions in Chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), evaluating the applicability of exemptions to certain in-effect tariffs, and implementing changes in buying and sourcing of manufacturing inputs could significantly affect the overall tariff burden faced by an importer.
• Finally, we will continue to—and we encourage all importers to continue to—monitor developments in this area. While a relatively high tariff environment appears poised to stay, policies are rapidly changing, and new developments in the coming days and weeks may continue to substantially affect importers.

Summary of February 24, 2026 Tariff Changes

Tariff	Impacted by Ruling or Response?
Base (“Most Favored Nation”)	No
Fentanyl-related (“Trafficking”)	Yes (10-35 percent tariff rescinded)
Reciprocal	Yes (10+ percent tariff rescinded)
Section 232	No
Section 301	No
Section 122	Yes (10* percent tariff introduced)
Antidumping & Countervailing Duties	No

^{*President Trump indicated that this tariff may soon escalate to 15 percent.}

Please reach out to Josephine Aiello LeBeau, Anne Seymour, Bryan Poellot, or another member of Wilson Sonsini’s National Security and Trade practice with questions regarding any of the previously discussed matters.