Summary
After almost a full year of trade policy announcements, the annual effective tariff rate has risen roughly tenfold since the start of this year, an escalation that has redefined America’s role in global trade. While the tariffs themselves create uncertainty, the judiciary has questioned the very basis of the legal authorization granting the power to impose some of the most far-reaching universal tariffs, an issue we first raised after Trump’s election victory in a publication titled “On What Authority.”
The Supreme Court is set to begin hearing arguments on that question in its current term, raising important questions. In this piece we do our best to provide answers to some of the most pressing ones:
- What tariffs are currently in effect and under what authority were they imposed?
- Tariffs currently cover around 65% of imports and fall largely into two buckets, product-level and universal, with different legislation used by President Trump to impose them.
- What is the Supreme Court considering in November, and how is it likely to rule?
- The Court is considering President Trump’s legal authority to impose universal tariffs under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). It’s unclear how the Court will rule, and, although a verdict could take weeks or even months, we may be able to gauge the Justice’s leanings when opening arguments begin in early November. Prediction markets suggest it’s more likely the Court strikes the tariffs down.
- If some tariffs are ruled illegal, what happens to tariff payments previously made?
- Collected funds would need to be refunded to the U.S. importers or businesses who paid them. This would take time and therefore not be a windfall of cash for businesses at the time of the verdict. The ultimate total size of refunds depends on a few factors but is somewhere in the ballpark of $70-$90 billion, and is rising.
- Could President Trump then rely on other legislation to re-impose tariffs?
- Yes, there is other legislation Trump could rely on to impose tariffs, but we are not aware of anything that grants the President the same broad power with immediate effect as the IEEPA, likely somewhat limiting the scope of additional tariffs but not completely dismissing them.
- What are the economic implications if the Supreme Court rules IEEPA tariffs illegal?
- The likely knee-jerk reaction to removing tariffs is to remove uncertainty and the stagflationary-shock from the economy, but it’s not that simple. Continued uncertainty around what tariffs may come to pass could be a headwind to growth generally, and more specifically the fear of looming changes to tariffs could leave businesses reluctant to cease cost pass-through.
From the Port to the Court
What tariffs are currently in effect and under what authority were they imposed?
The Trump administration’s far-ranging tariffs that cover around 65% of all U.S. imports have largely fallen into two buckets, each with their own basis in law, though the sturdiness of that legal justification has been brought into question in the courts. The first broad grouping is the sector- or product-level tariffs (e.g. steel, aluminum, autos). These appear to be on more solid footing in terms of the power granted under the law. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 grants the President authority to impose tariffs on imports that “threaten to impair the national security.” In order for these tariffs to go into effect, the U.S. Department of Commerce must complete an investigation determining the threat.
The second broad grouping is the universal or reciprocal tariffs (e.g., trafficking fentanyl, reciprocal universal). These levies were imposed through Section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), which allows the President some scope to regulate trade only if the President declares a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act (NEA). Unlike the Section 232 authorization, which requires time for the Commerce Department to conduct their investigation, these Section 203 tariffs take effect immediately under this 1977 Act. However, whether this statute lets the President unilaterally impose long-term, economy-wide tariffs is a matter soon to be considered by the Supreme Court.
What is the Supreme Court considering in November, and how is it likely to rule?
Following ‘Liberation Day’ back in early April, some businesses and state-governments brought cases against the administration questioning the legality of Trump’s ‘trafficking’ (fentanyl) and ‘reciprocal’ (universal) tariffs under IEEPA. The administration appealed the decisions of the trial and appellate courts which ruled against the tariffs, and the issue is now before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
The Court fast-tracked the timeline of the case. Oral arguments are set to begin November 5, at which time we may get a feel for the Justices’ initial thoughts through the questions and comments they raise, but a decision is not required until the end of the Court’s term in June/July 2026, meaning it’s quite possible it is months before we have a verdict. Unanimous decisions are typically released sooner, and there is also some historical precedent for quicker decisions in high-profile cases surrounded with unusual and urgent contexts. Take Bush v. Gore, for example, which was decided the day after oral arguments in part due to the strict deadline around certifying the election, but also the public and political pressure surrounding the outcome. With no business left untouched by tariffs today, the broad nature of the case may accelerate the timeline, and there is some belief among law professionals that a final decision may come by year-end or the first quarter.
We are not sure how the Court will ultimately rule, and tariffs will remain in effect until a ruling is made. There’s little precedent to draw from, as no other president has relied on IEEPA to impose tariffs. The closest historical example is perhaps when U.S. importers filed lawsuits against President Nixon’s 1971 use of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (TWEA), which predated IEEPA, to impose a 10% tariff on all imports into the U.S. to address a balance-of-payments crisis.1 The U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals upheld the government’s use of tariffs, and the legal debate never made its way to the Supreme Court. Importantly, these tariffs differ from the current use of the IEEPA as they were announced as temporary import taxes and were in effect for just four months from August to December 1971. Prediction market sites Polymarket and Kalshi both suggest roughly a 60% chance that SCOTUS strikes down the Trump tariffs.
If some tariffs are ruled illegal, what happens to tariff payments previously made?
If the Supreme Court rules the administration overstepped the authority granted in IEEPA, the U.S. Treasury Department would then be legally required to return the tariff funds collected to the U.S. importers/businesses who paid them to Customs at the port of entry into the United States.
Through September, the U.S. Treasury Department collected $174 billion in tariff revenue this year—more than double the total amount collected all of last year and representing over 4% of federal revenue collected. We estimate somewhere between 40% and 50% of this revenue was through IEEPA tariffs, which would put the total amount refunded somewhere in the ballpark of $70-$90 billion, if full use of the IEEPA (fentanyl and universal tariffs) is deemed an overstep. The amount to be potentially refunded will likely rise, as tariffs remain in effect until the Court reaches a verdict and recently-imposed higher reciprocal rates across a number of countries are still taking effect. But these figures are meant to be broad estimates as they ultimately depend on certain tariff-related assumptions, and it may be possible the Court could rule only a portion of tariffs under IEEPA are illegal.2
While there are all sorts of logistical questions around how collected tariff duties would be refunded, it is not completely unprecedented. In United States v. United States Shoe Corp (1998), SCOTUS struck down the Harbor Maintenance Tax as unconstitutional when applied to exports. The government was required to refund payments collected on exports, a process that reportedly took years for non-plaintiffs who had to file claims, show proof of payment and wait for Congressional appropriations and administrative mechanisms. There’s also a question around if importers would be entitled to interest on tariffs paid. Bottom line, if IEEPA tariffs are struck down, it likely would take time to see refunds and thus not equate to an immediate windfall of cash for businesses.
Could President Trump then rely on other legislation to re-impose tariffs?
The administration would likely try to rely on other legislation to impose tariffs, but importantly we’re not aware of anything that grants the President the same broad power with immediate effect as the IEEPA. Most other legislation requires an investigation by a federal agency, or limits the tariff rate or the period in which tariffs can remain in effect. Below is a short list of potential legislation upon which the President could rely, but since Congress has delegated trade policy authority to the executive branch through a number of Acts over the past 90 or so years, this list is not meant to be exhaustive:3
- Section 232, Trade Expansion Act of 1962: President can impose tariffs indefinitely if the U.S. Department of Commerce finds that imports of a product threaten to impair national security.
- Section 122, Trade Act of 1974: President can impose tariffs up to 15% for 150 days to address balance-of-payments issue. Tariffs can be extended indefinitely with Congressional approval. No federal investigation required.
- Section 201, Trade Act of 1974: President can impose temporary tariffs up to 50% for four years if the International Trade Commission finds serious injury to domestic industry. Tariff rate must be phased-down after one year, and tariffs can be extended to eight years.
- Section 301, Trade Act of 1974: U.S. Trade Representative can impose tariffs for four years, under the President’s direction, if it finds unjustifiable, unreasonable or discriminatory action against U.S. businesses and/or a violation of trade agreements. Tariffs may be imposed indefinitely, if continuation is requested and extended every four years.
- Section 338, Tariff Act of 1930: President can impose tariffs up to 50% indefinitely in response to foreign discrimination against U.S. commerce. No federal investigation required.
What are the economic implications if the Supreme Court rules IEEPA tariffs illegal?
We have long held that a sudden and sharp increase in the tariff rate has scope to introduce a mild stagflationary shock to the economy, though we’re not convinced the Court striking down a chunk of the tariffs would pave the way for faster growth or less inflation. It would not restore the status quo when it comes to tariffs, but would remove the legal basis for part of the tariff structure and prompt the administration to seek alternative legislation to impose tariffs. Importantly, a broad range of product-level tariffs would remain in place, keeping the U.S. effective tariff rate near 9% annually—more than four-times last year’s level and the highest since WWII. It’s also unclear if trade ‘deals’ and company-specific investment commitments would hold if the legislation underpinning the tariffs is overturned and/or modified.
In the near term, businesses could face even greater uncertainty about their exposure, even if such an outcome ultimately brought longer-term stability for trade policy and the economy. Many firms may hesitate to take up new investments and some still could pass on costs to protect margins out of fear of where tariffs may be headed in the future. At the end of the day, it wasn’t just the added cost of tariffs, but the uncertainty around which products and partners would ultimately be exposed that paralyzed decision-making. Another wave of uncertainty would be unavoidable and drive fresh headwinds for businesses heading into next year.
WellsFargo