In a dramatic turn that is reshaping global trade almost overnight, U.S. customs officials confirmed they will stop collecting a major tranche of tariffs starting just after midnight Tuesday—an abrupt policy reversal triggered by a landmark Supreme Court decision that has upended President Donald Trump’s trade strategy.
The announcement from U.S. Customs and Border Protection instructed shippers that all tariff codes tied to the disputed orders will be deactivated effective 12:01 a.m. EST, signaling an immediate operational halt at America’s ports of entry.
For importers, exporters, and global markets, the message was clear: one of the most aggressive tariff regimes in modern U.S. history has been stopped in its tracks—at least for now.
A 6–3 Ruling That Scrambled the Trade Landscape
The disruption stems from a decisive ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, which voted 6–3 to strike down the centerpiece of Trump’s second-term tariff program.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—the legal foundation the administration used to justify sweeping import duties—does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs.
“IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” the decision stated bluntly.
The ruling affirmed earlier judgments from lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade, which had already questioned the legality of the policy.
Immediate Fallout: Billions at Stake and Refund Questions Loom
Because the now-invalidated tariffs had already been collected for months, the decision could unleash a massive wave of reimbursements.
Legal analysts estimate more than $100 billion may ultimately be returned to importers, setting the stage for complex refund mechanisms and potential litigation over how repayments are calculated.
The suspension is expected to ripple through:
Global supply chains recalibrating cost structures
U.S. companies that passed tariff costs to consumers
Inflation metrics influenced by import pricing
Government revenue forecasts tied to trade duties
Trump Fires Back—and Moves Quickly to Replace the Tariffs
President Donald Trump responded within hours, sharply criticizing the Court’s majority as a “disgrace” and signaling he would pursue alternative legal pathways to maintain pressure on trading partners.
He wasted little time acting.
Invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, Trump signed an executive order late Friday imposing a new 10% global tariff, then escalated it to 15% the following day—the maximum allowed under that statute for a limited 150-day window without congressional approval.
The authority has existed for decades but has never before been used to impose tariffs at this scale, making the move both historic and legally untested.
A Temporary Tool With a Political Clock
Unlike the invalidated emergency tariffs, Section 122 powers are explicitly time-bound:
Tariffs can last up to 150 days without congressional action.
Any extension would require lawmakers’ approval.
The measure is traditionally designed to address short-term trade imbalances—not to anchor long-term policy.
That built-in expiration date creates a fast-approaching political and economic deadline, particularly as the administration navigates affordability concerns and prepares for midterm elections.
Markets, Businesses, and Allies Brace for More Uncertainty
The rapid sequence—court rejection, tariff suspension, and immediate reimposition under a different law—has left businesses scrambling to interpret what rules apply and for how long.
Trade attorneys say companies now face a landscape defined less by stability than by legal improvisation, where policy can shift with each court ruling or executive order.
Meanwhile, the administration has already floated plans to scale back some duties on metals such as steel and aluminum, signaling a willingness to recalibrate tariffs as inflation and consumer costs remain politically sensitive.
A Constitutional Clash With Global Consequences
Beyond its economic effects, the episode marks a rare and consequential clash between executive power and judicial interpretation over trade authority—one that could redefine how future presidents deploy emergency laws to reshape commerce.
For now, tariff collections tied to the invalidated orders have stopped.
But with new duties already taking their place under a different statute, the broader trade battle is far from over.
What began as a court decision has quickly evolved into a high-stakes legal and economic chess match—one whose next moves may determine not only the cost of imports, but the limits of presidential power in the global marketplace.