After the Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the president to impose tariffs, the Trump administration turned to other laws. It announced a temporary 10% surcharge under Section 122, then issued a July 23 memorandum directing tariff actions under Section 301 tied to forced-labor import restrictions. The later measures relied on different statutory authority; the Court’s IEEPA ruling did not approve them. The July memorandum set varied rates and exceptions, and by itself does not establish which duties were in effect on October 4, 2026.
What changed after the Supreme Court ruling?
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. The Congressional Research Service summarized the holding: IEEPA does not give the president authority to impose tariffs. The ruling addressed the administration’s use of IEEPA; it did not decide the legality or implementation of later actions under Sections 122 or 301.
The administration said it would continue pursuing its trade-policy aims using other tools. In a February 20 statement, the U.S. Trade Representative said: “For many months, the Trump Administration has cautioned foreign trading partners and the business community that if the Supreme Court were to limit the President’s authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA, alternative tools would be implemented to address many of the issues at the heart of the President’s reciprocal tariff program.”
That sequence is why the actions may be described as an attempt to “sidestep” the ruling. It is an editorial characterization, not a finding by the Court: the administration’s later measures invoked statutes other than IEEPA.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →#1 Best Overall
How the three tariff actions differ
| Action | Authority and stated basis | Rate and scope described in the available sources | Timing or legal status established here |
|---|---|---|---|
| IEEPA tariffs challenged in court | International Emergency Economic Powers Act; associated with the administration’s reciprocal tariff program | The materials summarized here do not specify a single rate for the program. | On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that IEEPA did not authorize the president to impose tariffs. |
| Temporary surcharge | Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 | 10% import surcharge, subject to statutory limits and listed exceptions. | The February 20 proclamation set July 24, 2026 as the date through which the surcharge was intended to operate. An Associated Press report on July 23 described it as a stopgap as that date approached. |
| Forced-labor-related tariff directives | Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, following investigations into trading partners’ import prohibitions on goods made wholly or partly with forced labor | Varied rates, product exemptions, special treatment for certain partners, and textile and apparel tariff-rate quotas; details below. | A presidential memorandum directing tariff actions was issued July 23, 2026. The memorandum alone does not establish whether every measure took effect or what its status was on October 4, 2026. |
What the July Section 301 memorandum directed
The July 23 memorandum followed USTR investigations into whether 60 economies failed to prohibit, or effectively enforce prohibitions on, imports of goods made wholly or partly with forced labor. The administration characterized the conduct examined as actionable under Section 301 and said the tariffs were intended to obtain its elimination. Those are the administration’s stated grounds and legal conclusions, not a ruling by the Supreme Court.
The memorandum did not set one uniform tariff for all imports. Its directions varied by partner and product:
| Category in the memorandum | Direction described | Qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Specified economies | 10% tariff | The available summary does not name the full list of specified economies. Product exemptions apply. |
| Other investigated economies | 12.5% tariff | This applies to other economies among those investigated, not to all countries or all imports. Product exemptions apply. |
| European Union, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and Switzerland | Special net-of-most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment | The summary does not provide the resulting rate for each partner. Product exemptions apply. |
| Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia | Textile and apparel tariff-rate quotas | The memorandum included quota provisions; the available summary does not state the quota volumes or implementation details. |
The Associated Press described the July announcement as duties of 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 trading partners representing 99% of U.S. imports. That is AP’s summary of the announcement, not a separately verified measure of the tariffs’ current coverage.
Why did the administration give?
The administration said its investigations focused on trading partners’ failure to enact or effectively enforce bans on imports produced with forced labor. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer put the administration’s position this way, as quoted by the Associated Press on July 23, 2026: “The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same.”
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11The July memorandum reported that USTR received over 1,600 written comments and heard testimony from over 100 witnesses. Those figures are the White House’s account of the investigation process.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Are the Section 301 tariffs in effect now?
The available information does not establish whether all the July 23 directives had taken effect by October 4, 2026, or whether subsequent notices or court orders changed, paused, or modified them. The memorandum is evidence of what the administration directed, not a complete current schedule of customs duties. An importer checking the duty on a particular shipment would need current official tariff schedules and notices, as well as any relevant court orders; the July announcement alone is not enough to determine the rate payable.
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.
