SCOTUS Curbs Executive Tariff Powers; White House Counters with New 10% Levy

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision represents a watershed moment for administrative law and the limits of executive branch authority over international commerce. By ruling that the administration overstepped its bounds under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Court has effectively reined in a decades-long trend of expanding presidential control over trade policy via national emergency declarations. The ruling specifically targets the sweeping levies introduced last year, which the administration had framed as a necessary tool for economic sovereignty. For the RegTech and legal sectors, this decision signals a massive shift in compliance requirements and a potential deluge of litigation as companies seek to claw back billions in duties paid under the now-invalidated regime.

The immediate White House response—a defiant Keep calm and tariff on social media campaign coupled with the announcement of a new 10% flat global tariff—suggests that the administration is not retreating but rather shifting its legal footing. President Trump’s characterization of the justices as fools and the ruling as terrible underscores a deepening friction between the executive and judicial branches. By pivoting to alternative laws, the administration likely intends to utilize Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, both of which offer different, albeit still contested, pathways for executive-led trade barriers.

“

The immediate White House response—a defiant Keep calm and tariff on social media campaign coupled with the announcement of a new 10% flat global tariff—suggests that the administration is not retreating but rather shifting its legal footing.

For corporate legal departments, the most pressing concern is the mechanism for refunds. While the Court’s ruling opens the door for the return of billions of dollars, the President’s warning that these funds will be tied up in court for years suggests a strategy of administrative attrition. Legal teams must now navigate a dual-track reality: filing for retrospective relief from the old tariffs while simultaneously re-calibrating supply chains to account for the new 10% levy. This creates a high-stakes environment for trade compliance software and automated filing systems, which must now handle complex, multi-year refund claims across diverse jurisdictions.

Furthermore, the 6-3 split in the Court highlights a persistent ideological divide regarding the Major Questions Doctrine—the principle that if an agency or the President wants to decide an issue of major national significance, it must have clear authorization from Congress. The majority’s finding that IEEPA did not grant the President the power to impose a permanent, global tariff structure suggests that the Court is increasingly skeptical of broad interpretations of 20th-century statutes. This has implications far beyond trade, potentially affecting how the SEC, EPA, and other regulatory bodies interpret their own enabling legislation.

Looking ahead, the global trade environment enters a period of heightened volatility. The Liberation Day tariffs may be gone, but the replacement 10% duty ensures that the cost of doing business in the U.S. market remains elevated. Trading partners who briefly celebrated the SCOTUS ruling are now faced with a fresh round of uncertainty. For RegTech providers, the opportunity lies in developing tools that can model these rapid-fire policy shifts in real-time. As the administration tests the limits of alternative statutes, the legal community should expect a series of follow-on challenges that will further define the boundaries of the President’s power to regulate the American economy through the lens of national security and emergency.