- The court did not judge whether the tariffs were advisable, but whether the law invoked gave the president the power to impose them.
- The tariffs did not disappear: they changed legal basis, with a new temporary global tariff.
- Those who paid the annulled tariffs may consider claiming refunds, and for that they need orderly customs documentation.
On 20 February 2026 the US Supreme Court ruled, by six votes to three, that the emergency-powers law did not allow the president to impose tariffs. Days later a temporary global tariff came into force, under another law and limited to 150 days. For many companies, the news did not mean immediate relief but one more change of rules to adapt to.
It is one of those decisions that change the framework of trade policy without necessarily changing the level of tariffs. For European and Spanish exporters who sell to the United States, or for those who import products that pass through it, the ruling raises as many questions as it answers, and the first is what is paid now and on what legal basis. The second is how long it will last, something nobody can yet answer with certainty.
What the court decided
The ruling did not discuss whether the tariffs were advisable but whether the law invoked gave the president that power. The answer was no. In the US system, authority over tariffs belongs in the first place to Congress, and the president can exercise it only to the extent that a law clearly delegates it.
It is a reminder that trade policy, besides being economic, has a legal component that can change the rules overnight. Anyone working in foreign trade does well to follow not only political announcements but also the court proceedings and the rules that underpin each measure, because their duration depends on them. A tariff resting on a fragile legal basis is a source of risk for any long-term contract.
Another tariff, another legal basis
The tariffs did not disappear; they changed their legal basis. The new temporary tariff kept up the pressure on trade and left open the question of what would come next, once the 150 days ran out. For exporters, uncertainty was the main cost, because it made it hard to set prices and close contracts with any security. An exporter who does not know what tariff will apply in a few weeks cannot commit to a firm price or a delivery schedule without taking a risk it may not be able to afford.
In an international sale, who bears the tariff depends on what the parties have agreed, for example through the Incoterm chosen. Reviewing those clauses, and providing in contracts a mechanism for sharing unforeseen changes in tariffs, helps ensure that a legal turn does not fall entirely on one party without anyone having decided it. It is not a matter of distrusting the other party but of making clear from the outset who bears what.
Refunds and paperwork
For companies that had paid the annulled tariffs, the possibility of claiming refunds opened up. Claiming requires proving what was paid: keeping customs documentation proved valuable, and those who did not have it in order faced extra work. Without declarations, proofs of payment and classifications to hand, any claim starts at a disadvantage. The same holds for operations carried out through agents or freight forwarders, from whom it is worth being able to retrieve copies of the documents.
A customs adviser can guide each case: which operations might be affected, which papers need to be gathered and whether it is worth filing a claim or waiting to see how the procedures are set up. Nor should it be forgotten that claims have deadlines, and that letting them run out through ignorance is an avoidable way to lose money. A good practice is to keep an orderly file of every operation with the United States, so that any future review can be resolved quickly.
In foreign trade, a well-kept archive is also an asset.
This article is general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice, and it does not take anyone’s particular circumstances into account.
