U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Unilateral Tariff Power — Global Supply Chains Pivot to a Fragile ‘15% Baseline’ Amid Legal Fallout and Strategic Realignment

In a landmark ruling with far-reaching implications for global trade governance and supply chain resilience, the U.S. Supreme Court has decisively curtailed presidential authority over import tariffs—upending months of unilateral trade policy under the Trump administration. On February 22, 2026, the Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump’s imposition of additional import duties under executive fiat exceeded constitutional and statutory limits. The decision invalidated the legal foundation of over $170 billion in tariff revenue collected since early 2025 and triggered an immediate recalibration across manufacturing hubs, logistics corridors, and procurement strategies worldwide. For supply chain professionals, this is not merely a legal footnote—it is a structural reset: one that replaces ad hoc protectionism with a volatile, time-bound, and politically contested ‘15% baseline tariff regime’ whose durability remains deeply uncertain.

The Constitutional Breakpoint: Why the Court Said ‘No’

The Court’s majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, centered on the separation of powers and statutory interpretation of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Crucially, the justices held that while Congress delegated limited tariff-setting authority to the president under Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair trade practices), it did not authorize broad, economy-wide duties imposed without congressional authorization or judicial review. The ruling explicitly rejected the administration’s claim that ‘economic insecurity’ constituted a cognizable national security threat under Section 232—a precedent that now constrains future administrations from weaponizing national security rhetoric to justify sweeping industrial policy.

This jurisprudential boundary has profound operational consequences. Logistics managers at multinational enterprises must now reassess tariff classification workflows, customs valuation protocols, and bonded warehouse utilization—not just for compliance, but for strategic agility. With the Court declining to rule on refund eligibility (leaving that to lower courts), over 1,500 companies have already filed claims in the U.S. Court of International Trade. If successful, total refunds could reach $170 billion, representing more than half of all tariff revenue collected under the contested orders. That scale of potential liability forces CFOs and treasury teams to model cash flow volatility across fiscal quarters—and re-evaluate duty-drawback program participation, foreign-trade zone (FTZ) deferrals, and advance rulings from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

The 15% Baseline: A Fragile New Equilibrium

In response, the Trump administration invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, authorizing a temporary, blanket 15% ad valorem tariff on all imports. But unlike prior measures, Section 122 imposes strict temporal limits: the levy expires after 150 days, and any extension requires explicit congressional approval—a near-impossibility given current partisan gridlock. This creates a uniquely unstable operating environment for global supply chains: