The United States has stopped collecting certain import tariffs after the US Supreme Court ruled that they were unlawfully imposed. However, major duties on steel, aluminium and automobiles remain in force, and the Trump administration has simultaneously introduced new temporary global tariffs. The ruling reshapes the legal framework of US trade policy but does not eliminate uncertainty for global businesses.
Supreme Court limits presidential authority
The Court held that the president could not rely on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose sweeping import tariffs. According to the ruling, such authority primarily rests with Congress.
The decision mainly affects the so-called “reciprocal” tariffs introduced in April on a wide range of countries, including the European Union. These duties ranged from 10% to 50% and were justified on the basis of economic emergency powers.
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has announced that the relevant tariff codes will be deactivated. It remains unclear whether importers will receive refunds, even though economists estimate that roughly $175 billion (about €148 billion) in revenue has been collected from the now-invalid tariffs.
Not all tariffs are affected
Crucially, the ruling does not apply to all US import duties. Tariffs on foreign steel, aluminium and automobiles remain in place, as they are based on different statutory authorities.
At the same time, the administration has introduced a new temporary global tariff of up to 15%, valid for a maximum of 150 days. Certain critical minerals, agricultural products and specific vehicles are exempted.
This indicates that the underlying policy direction remains intact, even if its legal foundation is being adjusted.
Economic Impact: adjustments already made
Although some tariffs are being suspended, much of the economic impact has already materialized. Companies have passed on higher costs, rerouted supply chains and shifted production across countries. Such adjustments are often costly and difficult to reverse.
Rather than triggering a large-scale return of manufacturing to the United States, tariffs have primarily redirected global trade flows. Structural objectives, including reducing the trade deficit and strengthening domestic production, have only been partially achieved.
A new phase of trade policy
The Supreme Court’s decision restricts one specific legal instrument, but not the broader strategy of using tariffs as a core economic policy tool. Alternative pathways remain available, including national security-based tariffs and targeted trade investigations.
As a result, the pace of tariff escalation may become slower and more procedural, but policy uncertainty will persist. Future measures are likely to be more legally structured, yet still economically impactful.
EU response and Transatlantic relations
The European Union has responded cautiously, indicating that it is carefully analyzing the ruling. The existing EU -US trade agreement is not affected by the decision and therefore remains in force. Businesses on both sides of the Atlantic continue to rely on stability and predictability in transatlantic trade relations.
Conclusion
The US Supreme Court ruling marks an important legal boundary for presidential trade actions. However, the swift introduction of new tariffs demonstrates that import duties remain a central pillar of US trade policy.
For companies, this means that tariff risks are not disappearing, they are evolving. The landscape is shifting from sudden unilateral measures toward a more procedural and politically driven trade policy environment, requiring continued strategic resilience and supply chain flexibility.
