On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. The IEEPA tariffs that had reshaped global trade throughout 2025 were terminated effective February 24, 2026.
For businesses that spent the past year absorbing 25% tariff costs on Canadian goods, 10–25% on Mexican goods, and elevated rates across Chinese and EU categories, the ruling brought immediate relief — and immediate uncertainty. Because the ruling ended one era of tariff policy while opening another.
What is actually in effect right now
The Supreme Court ruling did not end all tariffs. Three separate tariff regimes are worth understanding:
Section 122 tariffs — 10%, expires July 2026
Within 24 hours of the IEEPA ruling, the administration imposed a 10% tariff on nearly all imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision designed for short-term balance-of-payments emergencies. These tariffs are effective now and expire automatically after 150 days — approximately end of July 2026. They are not as severe as the IEEPA tariffs they replaced, but they are not zero.
Section 232 tariffs — steel and aluminum, unchanged
The Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum were imposed under a separate legal authority and were not affected by the IEEPA ruling. Companies in construction, manufacturing, automotive, and energy sectors that carry steel and aluminum tariff exposure are in the same position they were before February 20.
Section 301 reimposition — expected, rates unknown
The administration has signaled plans to reimpose tariffs at or near previous levels using Section 301 of the Trade Act, a broader and more durable legal authority. Section 301 tariffs have withstood prior legal challenges and are expected to remain viable. The rate, timing, and scope of Section 301 reimposition are not yet determined — but the signal from the administration has been clear.
The refund process — and its complications
Businesses that paid IEEPA tariffs from the date of imposition through February 24, 2026 are eligible to file for refunds. Industry estimates put the total refund pool at approximately $166 billion. The process runs through US Customs and Border Protection and typically takes 60–90 days.
The complication is political. President Trump publicly stated he would “remember” companies that file for refunds — a comment interpreted by many mid-market businesses as a signal that filing could affect their regulatory relationships, government contracting standing, or access to future policy accommodations.
This creates a genuine dilemma. The refunds are legally available. The political risk of claiming them is real but hard to quantify. Each business needs to make this call based on its own exposure to federal relationships and its assessment of the political climate over the next 12–24 months.
Why the uncertainty is worse than the tariffs themselves
When tariffs were at 25% on Canadian goods, the number was painful — but it was a number. Companies could model it. They could decide how much to absorb, what to pass through, which contracts to renegotiate, which supply chain moves to prioritize.
The current environment is harder to plan around. Section 301 reimposition is expected — but at what rate? 10%? 25%? The same as IEEPA? Higher? On what timeline? Effective immediately upon announcement, or phased in? Covering the same goods? The same countries?
A company trying to price a 12-month supply contract today faces a real problem: the cost basis for that contract could change by 25 percentage points within the contract term. That uncertainty is not manageable through standard contract terms or operational flexibility. It requires a financial answer.
What this means for importers
US importers sourcing from Canada, Mexico, China, and EU countries are now in a transitional period. The 10% Section 122 tariff is in effect. When it expires in July, the tariff rate drops — unless Section 301 reimposition has already begun.
Supply chain repositioning decisions made during the 2025 tariff period — qualifying new suppliers, diversifying away from tariff-exposed countries, building domestic sourcing — remain strategically correct. But the pace and prioritization of those moves now depend on assumptions about Section 301 rates that nobody can make with confidence.
Financial protection fills the gap between now and when your supply chain is fully repositioned. You do not need to predict the Section 301 rate. You need protection that responds if tariffs exceed a specified level — and that certainty allows you to price contracts, plan procurement, and commit to customers without leaving the full downside unmanaged.
What this means for exporters
Canadian, Mexican, and other exporters with US contracts faced a brutal 2025. Many of those contracts are still in force at pre-tariff pricing. The IEEPA ruling provided relief — but companies that absorbed tariff costs and did not reprice are now exposed again if Section 301 tariffs reimpose at similar levels.
The structural problem for exporters is the same as it was in 2025: long-term contracts signed at pre-tariff margins don't automatically reprice when the tariff environment changes. If Section 301 imposes at 20–25% rates, the companies that went through this once are going through it again — without the relief of a Supreme Court ruling to look forward to.
For US exporters facing retaliatory measures, the picture is similarly uncertain. Trading partners that imposed countermeasures in response to IEEPA tariffs are watching Section 301 developments closely. Retaliatory tariffs on US agricultural goods, industrial products, and manufactured exports could be reimposed or escalated depending on what Section 301 looks like.
How financial protection works in this environment
The core value proposition of tariff financial protection is unchanged by the ruling — and in some ways strengthened. You do not need to know what the Section 301 rate will be. You need a structure that responds if tariffs reach a level that causes material harm to your business.
Exchange-traded financial instruments structured around tariff triggers work exactly this way. You specify the threshold — say, tariffs on Canadian goods reaching 15% or 25% — and the instrument settles automatically when official published government data reflects that condition. No claims process. No adjuster. No documentation of individual shipment losses.
For businesses uncertain about Section 301 timing, protection can be structured with forward-looking triggers tied to expected reimposition scenarios. For businesses still exposed from 2025 who are now considering the refund question, protection covers future exposure while the refund decision is made on its own merits.
The bottom line
The Supreme Court ruling ended IEEPA tariffs. It did not end tariff risk. Section 122 tariffs are in effect now. Section 232 tariffs were never touched. Section 301 reimposition is expected at unknown rates and timing. The political environment makes even the refund calculation complicated.
The businesses best positioned for what comes next are the ones that treated 2025 as a lesson rather than an anomaly. They are building supply chain resilience as a long-term response and using financial protection as a near-term hedge — so that whatever rate, whatever timeline, whatever authority the next tariff action uses, the financial impact is managed rather than absorbed.
The assessment to quantify your forward exposure takes 48 hours and costs nothing. The cost of not having it, if Section 301 reimposition moves faster than expected, is not a number you want to discover after the fact.