Yes. On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the tariffs challenged in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. The Supreme Court later reached the same central conclusion: on February 20, 2026, it held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs and affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment in V.O.S. Selections. The ruling is about tariffs imposed under IEEPA, not every tariff imposed under any federal law.
What did the appeals court decide?
The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed in relevant part a Court of International Trade judgment in cases brought by small businesses and states. The central question was whether IEEPA’s authorization to “regulate . . . importation” gave the president power to impose the challenged tariffs. The court concluded that Congress had not granted that tariff authority through those words. The en banc decision was 7–4, as reported by the Associated Press.
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/416BB956AZL._SL160_.jpg)
The ruling did not immediately stop collection. The Federal Circuit withheld its mandate while Supreme Court review was pursued, so the tariffs remained in place temporarily during that process. The appeals court’s merits ruling and the practical date when collections changed were therefore separate matters.
What did the Supreme Court later hold?
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court decided the consolidated Learning Resources and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections cases. It held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The Court treated tariffs as an exercise of the taxing power and concluded that IEEPA’s import-regulation language did not grant the authority the government claimed.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
The cases did not receive identical procedural treatment. The Court affirmed the judgment in V.O.S. Selections, but vacated the judgment in Learning Resources and sent that case back with instructions to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. The legal holding on IEEPA tariff authority should also be distinguished from supporting reasoning that did not command the same set of justices.
Does the ruling invalidate every Trump tariff?
No. The decision resolves whether IEEPA authorizes the tariffs at issue; it does not decide the legality of tariffs imposed under a different statute. A separate dispute over temporary tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 proceeded on its own track. The Associated Press reported that the Federal Circuit allowed those tariffs to continue while that challenge was pending. That interim decision is not the Supreme Court’s final merits holding on IEEPA.
| Issue | IEEPA tariffs in V.O.S. Selections | Separate Section 122 dispute |
|---|---|---|
| Statute invoked | International Emergency Economic Powers Act | Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 |
| What the cited decision established | The Supreme Court held IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs and affirmed the Federal Circuit judgment. | The Federal Circuit allowed the temporary tariffs to continue while the challenge was pending, according to Associated Press reporting. |
| What readers should not infer | That every tariff under every statute is invalid. | That the interim ruling settled the separate challenge’s merits. |
Will businesses receive tariff refunds?
Not automatically based on the IEEPA ruling alone. On February 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said it was working with other agencies to assess the decision’s implications and would provide further information and technical guidance for ACE filers. That announcement described the agency’s initial response; it did not resolve every customs entry or establish that every importer qualifies for a refund.
Refund eligibility and the treatment of finalized customs entries have been contested separately. The Associated Press reported that the government appealed a Court of International Trade order requiring refunds for importers who were not parties to the litigation. That dispute means the scope of relief cannot be assumed from the Supreme Court’s statutory ruling alone.
Recommended Free Tools
What this means for households and importers
For an individual shopper, the ruling does not itself create a personal refund claim for a past purchase. The cases concern the government’s authority to collect particular tariffs from importers, while the details of any refunds depend on customs procedures and separate litigation. Businesses that paid duties should rely on CBP’s technical guidance and the orders applicable to their entries, rather than assume that the judgment automatically returns a specific amount.
For readers tracking tariff policy, the key distinction is the legal authority used: the Supreme Court rejected IEEPA as a source of presidential tariff power, but other statutes present separate questions. The Federal Circuit’s later treatment of Section 122 tariffs illustrates why a ruling about one law should not be generalized to all tariffs.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
