On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court delivered one of the most consequential trade rulings in decades. In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court struck down President Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), holding that the statute "does not authorize the president to impose tariffs." The ruling invalidates tariffs that had collected over $160 billion from importers and were projected to generate $1.4 trillion over the next decade. For companies involved in international procurement, the implications are immediate and far-reaching.
What the Court Decided
The majority opinion rested on two pillars. First, the Court applied textual analysis to IEEPA's language, which authorizes the president to "regulate … importation or exportation" during national emergencies. Chief Justice Roberts concluded that "regulate" is fundamentally different from "tax," and that the surrounding statutory language — words like "nullify," "void," and "prevent" — describes regulatory actions, not revenue collection. As Roberts wrote, "Those words cannot bear such weight."
Second, three justices in the majority (Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett) invoked the major questions doctrine, which holds that Congress must provide "clear congressional authorization" before delegating powers of vast economic significance to the executive branch. The remaining three justices in the majority (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) reached the same result through textual analysis alone.
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Thomas and Alito, dissented, arguing that tariffs are traditional import-regulation tools well within IEEPA's scope. Kavanaugh's dissent notably warned that the government "may be required to refund billions" — a point that has already triggered a wave of litigation.
Justice Gorsuch filed a 46-page concurrence criticizing inconsistencies in statutory interpretation across the Court's recent jurisprudence, signaling that future cases involving executive trade authority may face additional scrutiny.
What Was Struck Down
The ruling invalidates all tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority, including:
- "Trafficking tariffs" targeting China, Canada, and Mexico, originally justified by the fentanyl crisis
- "Reciprocal tariffs" imposing a 10% baseline duty on imports from most countries, announced on "Liberation Day"
- All associated executive orders invoking IEEPA to impose duties on imports
These tariffs had been in effect for months in some cases, meaning billions in duties were collected from importers across virtually every sector of the economy.
The Refund Question
The most immediate business impact is the potential for refunds on tariffs already paid. The case now returns to the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) to establish refund mechanisms. Three pathways are emerging:
Unliquidated entries — imports that have not yet been finalized by Customs and Border Protection — can be corrected through post-summary corrections that remove the IEEPA tariff component before liquidation.
Liquidated entries — imports already finalized — will require either administrative protests with CBP or claims filed directly with the CIT. The government has indicated it will not oppose reliquidation orders, which suggests refunds for most importers are a matter of process rather than outcome.
Third-party complications — The CIT now requires plaintiffs to disclose any third-party financing behind refund claims, reflecting concerns about who ultimately receives refund proceeds. Companies that passed tariff costs downstream through their supply chains may face contractual disputes over who is entitled to the refund. Importers of record who do not pursue available refunds could face breach-of-contract claims from downstream parties.
For procurement contractors who imported materials or equipment for project execution, auditing customs entries for refund eligibility should be an immediate priority.
The Section 122 Replacement and Ongoing Uncertainty
The administration moved swiftly after the ruling. On February 21 — one day after the decision — President Trump announced replacement tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, initially at 10% and with stated intention to escalate to 15%. Section 122 addresses balance-of-payments deficits and is limited to 150 days unless Congress extends it.
The administration has also signaled potential use of four additional statutory authorities:
- Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act) — national security tariffs, which already cover steel and aluminum and are projected to generate $635 billion over the next decade
- Section 201 (Trade Act of 1974) — safeguard tariffs for import surges, limited to eight years
- Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974) — tariffs responding to unfair foreign trade practices, extendable indefinitely
- Section 338 (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) — addresses discriminatory commerce, largely untested in modern practice
This patchwork of potential tariff authorities creates significant uncertainty for companies planning procurement budgets. While the IEEPA tariffs are gone, the replacement Section 122 duties are already in effect, and further tariff actions under other statutes are likely.
Direct Impact on International Procurement
For companies that participate in public tenders — especially those involving imported goods, construction materials, or technology components — the ruling creates both opportunities and risks.
Supply Contract Repricing
The elimination of IEEPA tariffs on most goods immediately changes the cost calculus for supply tenders. Companies that had priced IEEPA tariffs into their bids may now find themselves with more competitive cost structures, or may need to renegotiate existing contracts that included tariff-related price escalation clauses.
However, the Section 122 replacement tariffs at 10-15% partially offset this benefit. Bidders need to model both the current Section 122 rates and the possibility that these tariffs expire or are replaced within 150 days.
Force Majeure and Change-in-Law Provisions
Many international procurement contracts include force majeure or change-in-law clauses that address exactly this type of sudden regulatory shift. Companies currently executing contracts that were priced with IEEPA tariffs embedded in their cost structures should review these provisions carefully. Depending on the contract language, the tariff elimination may trigger price adjustment mechanisms — or, conversely, may obligate the contractor to pass savings through to the procuring entity.
Budget Uncertainty for Procuring Entities
Government agencies and international organizations that issue tenders are also affected. Budget estimates for procurement projects involving imported goods have been based on price levels that included IEEPA tariffs. With those tariffs eliminated but new ones imposed at potentially different rates, procurement planning becomes more complex. Expect to see more tenders with price adjustment mechanisms built into their terms, and potentially wider bid price spreads as bidders make different assumptions about the tariff landscape over the contract period.
Steel, Aluminum, and Construction Materials
Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum remain untouched by the ruling, which matters significantly for infrastructure and construction tenders. Companies bidding on projects that require imported steel or aluminum should not expect any cost relief from the IEEPA decision on those specific materials. The estimated average household cost of Section 232 tariffs alone is $400 per year, reflecting the broad reach of these duties across construction and manufacturing supply chains.
What Companies Should Do Now
The legal and commercial landscape is shifting rapidly. Companies involved in international procurement should take several immediate steps:
Audit customs entries. Identify all imports on which IEEPA tariffs were paid. Determine which entries are still unliquidated (and can be corrected) versus liquidated (requiring formal claims). Administrative deadlines for filing protests are strict.
Review contract terms. Examine existing procurement contracts for tariff-related provisions, price escalation clauses, change-in-law language, and force majeure triggers. Determine whether you have obligations to pursue refunds or pass savings to counterparties.
Reassess bid pricing. For upcoming tenders, model pricing scenarios that account for the current Section 122 tariffs, the possibility of their expiration in 150 days, and potential additional tariffs under Sections 201, 301, or other authorities. Building flexibility into pricing proposals is more important now than at any point in recent memory.
Monitor legislative developments. Congress may act to extend Section 122 tariffs beyond the 150-day limit, or may pass new tariff legislation in response to the ruling. The political dynamics around trade policy are fluid, and procurement planning should account for multiple scenarios.
Preserve documentation. Maintain records of all tariff payments, contract amendments, price adjustments, and communications related to tariff cost allocation. These records will be essential for both refund claims and any contractual disputes that arise.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling is not the end of the tariff story — it is the beginning of a new chapter. The immediate elimination of one set of tariffs, combined with the rapid imposition of replacements under different legal authority, means that the trade policy environment will remain volatile for the foreseeable future.
For companies competing in international procurement, this volatility is both a challenge and a differentiator. Firms that build tariff scenario analysis into their bidding processes, maintain tight control over their import cost structures, and stay current on legal developments will be better positioned to win and profitably execute contracts in this environment.
---
Find Related Tenders on BidsFactory: