Tariffs after the Supreme Court: what changed and what you're paying

The Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs in February and refunds now top $120 billion, but new tariffs replaced them. Here's the current picture and what it's done to prices.

What happened

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not let the president impose tariffs. About $166 billion had been collected under those tariffs.

Within days the administration imposed a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, which allows temporary tariffs for 150 days. A trade court ruled that tariff unlawful in May, but it stayed in place on appeal until it expired on July 24. It was replaced by Section 301 tariffs tied to forced-labor rules: 10% on 17 countries that agreed to ban forced-labor imports and 12.5% on 38 others, including China. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum and other goods remain.

Refunds

• Customs (CBP) reported in mid-September that about $122 billion in IEEPA refunds, including interest, had been certified and sent to the Treasury for payment.

• A third refund phase opened on October 6 for older, finally settled entries covered by court orders.

• About $1.3 billion in refunds was on hold because importers had not provided bank details.

Refunds go to the importer of record, not directly to consumers who paid higher prices.

What it's done to prices

• New York Fed economists estimate tariffs added about 2.9 percentage points to consumer goods inflation by February 2026; without them, goods prices would have fallen slightly.

• Inflation rose to 3.7% in September (released October 14), up from 3.4% in August. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, was 2.6%. Most of the jump came from energy: gasoline rose 9.1% in the month because of the Iran war.

The case for tariffs

Supporters say tariffs protect American manufacturing jobs, reduce dependence on China for critical goods, give the U.S. leverage in trade talks, and raise revenue. They argue the price effect is a one-time adjustment, and that today's inflation is driven by oil rather than trade policy.

The case against

Critics say tariffs are a tax paid mostly by American consumers and businesses, invite retaliation against U.S. exporters such as farmers, and that the president should not be able to set them without Congress. The Supreme Court ruling and the trade-court decision on Section 122 both turned on limits to presidential power.

What to watch

The Federal Circuit's ruling on whether Section 122 payments must be refunded, the U.S. Trade Representative's review of China tariffs under Section 301, and whether Congress moves to set or limit tariff authority.