Don’t pop the champagne yet. 

That’s the advice from Clark Packard, Research Fellow at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, regarding the February 20 U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down President Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs. The decision in the case, Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Trump, President of the United States, et al., which cannot be further challenged under U.S. law, is a “welcome victory for constitutional governance and the rule of law,” Packard said. 

But, as President Trump made clear in a February 20 press conference, he retains ample statutory authority to quickly recreate much of what Packard described as the current trade policy chaos.

“We have other alternatives that have been approved by this decision,” said a visibly angry Trump during the press conference, saying he would “charge even more.” 

"The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes and authorities as recognized by the Court and Congress, even stronger than IEEPA tariffs," said Trump, adding that, "The opinion of the Court has been swayed by foreign interests."

"While I'm sure they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court's decision made the President's power for tariffs more powerful, and more clear," said Trump, citing sections 122, 201, 232, 301, and 338 of U.S. trade laws. He said those mechanisms for imposing tariffs presented a "little bit longer process." 

"In order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past year under the various tariff authorities," Trump claimed. "So, we can use other tariff authorities, which have also been confirmed and are fully allowed." 

On February 20, Trump said he would sign an order to impose 10% tariffs under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1062, effective February 24, and would initiate "several" section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and "other" investigations "to protect our country from unfair trading practices." 

A day later, on February 21, he upped that across-the-board tariff to 15%, the maximum allowed under section 232, and with a legal limit of 150 days before requiring congressional approval. He did not specify whether the 15% tariffs would be against all countries or would target specific ones, and did not say what the various section 301 investigations would cover. 

“We have tariffs,” Trump said. “We just have them in a different way.”

Read More: Trump Rebuked by House Over Canada Tariffs as Midterm Anxieties Grow

There are precedents. During Trump’s first term, he invoked sections 301 and 232 to hit China with steel and aluminum tariffs. Furthermore, U.S. law provides other tools that have largely escaped notice, Packard warned. Two lesser-known provisions — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the controversial Smoot-Hawley Act that ushered in the last tranche of widespread protectionist tariffs) — could let the Administration continue its tariff onslaught even without IEEPA.

“Following the Supreme Court ruling against country-based tariffs, the administration may impose additional commodity-based tariffs," said Moody's supply chain practice lead Andrei Quinn‑Barabanov. "This could trigger another round of exemption requests and international trade negotiations, potentially prolonging the tariff rate uncertainty and resulting sourcing paralysis well into 2026.

 “Making prudent, long-term sourcing decisions becomes difficult when you can only make solid assumptions about tariffs for some potential vendors, but not for others," Quinn‑Barabanov said. "This sourcing paralysis may [lead] to 2026 supplier negotiations that are more adversarial and short-term in their outlook.”  

Other economics experts agreed. Although the ruling immediately lowers the effective average tariff rate down sharply, from 12.8% to 8.3%, any boost to the economy from lowering tariffs in the near term is likely to be partly offset by a prolonged period of uncertainty, said Michael Pearce, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. “With the Administration likely to rebuild tariffs through other, more durable, means, the overall tariffs rate may yet end up settling close to current levels.”

Canada's International Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said the tariffs causing the most pain in Canada, sector-specific measures affecting the steel, aluminum and auto industries, remained in force despite the ruling, and promised that Ottawa would work with Washington to "create growth and opportunities on both sides of the border," according NDTV.

Mexico, also, sounded a cautious note. "Not only are we the largest exporter to the United States, but we are also the largest buyer of U.S. products,” said Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, during her daily morning conference. “What that shows is that beyond a particular policy of greater protectionism, it is very important for both the countries to maintain the trade agreement."

It’s hard to know how much certainty the ruling brings to supply chain management, said Nishith Rastogi, founder and chief executive officer of Locus, which provides software for companies to track environmental and compliance metrics, among other factors. “Supply chains don’t automatically revert to some earlier baseline," he said. "Over the past year, companies changed suppliers, shifted volume across regions, and repositioned inventory to manage the tariff structure as it existed. When the rules change again, those decisions don’t just unwind neatly.”

“The companies that manage this best won’t treat it as a reset," said Rastogi. "They’ll treat it as another adjustment cycle. Clearer policy helps, but what matters is how quickly operations can respond when the environment shifts again.” 

The Tax Foundation said that, while the ruling means that the “Liberation Day” tariffs are illegal, the section 232 tariffs remain. With those alone in place, the government will raise $635 billion over the next decade, compared to the $1.4 trillion that would have been raised from 2026 through 2035 under the IEEPA-based tariffs. “Uncertainty continues as the President could pursue other discretionary trade powers to impose additional tariffs,” the Foundation said in a February 20 statement. 

Industry bodies welcomed the decision. David French, executive vice president of the National Retail Federation, said the court’s decision provided “much-needed certainty for U.S. businesses and manufacturers, enabling global supply chains to operate without ambiguity.”  

The Alliance for Chemical Distribution president and CEO Eric R. Byer said ACD members, "many of whom are small businesses, have navigated cost burdens and uncertainties that have adversely impacted the ability to import and deliver the chemical products essential to American’s health and safety. ACD is reviewing the Court’s ruling, and it is our hope this finally brings clarity in order for our members  to continue to contribute to domestic economic growth and safely distribute the essential chemical products used in nearly every industry.” 

The NRF joined the chorus of industry voices urging the lower court to ensure a seamless process to refund the tariffs to U.S. importers. “The refunds will serve as an economic boost and allow companies to reinvest in their operations, their employees and their customers,” French said.  

During his February 20 press conference, Trump criticized the Supreme Court for not addressing the issue of refunds in its ruling. “I guess it’s going to get litigated for the next two years,” he said.

Learning Resources is the toymaker at the center of the challenge. CEO Rick Woldenberg told SupplyChainBrain that “We are deeply grateful for the opportunity to present our case before the Supreme Court and are humbled by the Court’s decision. We congratulate the other plaintiffs in the case, their counsel, and the remarkable team of lawyers at Akin Gump representing us.

“As family-owned, mission-driven education companies, we brought this lawsuit to protect our 500+ employees and the schools and families who rely on us. We remain committed to our mission: We Bring Learning to Life,” said Woldenberg. “With today’s decision, we will continue to pursue our mission through innovation, investment, and hard work supporting educators, families, and children around the world, without the burden of unlawful tariffs.”

This is far from  the end of the story, but the opening of a new chapter — one in which Trump will continue to wield game-changing powers both domestically and internationally. “It was clear from the initial imposition of the tariffs that they were not about the economy but rather as a way for Trump to try to impose his will on the global economy,” said Phillip Braun, a clinical professor of finance at Kellogg School of Management, in a February 20 statement. 

The impact on regular Americans remains uncertain. The Tax Foundation estimates that the IEEPA tariffs increased taxes on American households by about $1,000 in 2025, and will tack on another $1,300 in 2026. “The unpredictability, especially for small businesses, was almost as damaging as the rates themselves,” Packard said.