Last Updated:
JPMorgan Chase analysts say that the fate of many trade deals negotiated during the period when these tariffs were in effect “is in question”.
US President Donald Trump. (File Photo: Reuters)
The Supreme Court of the United States has delivered a major setback to President Donald Trump‘s tariffs, ruling 6-3 that broad tariffs imposed under emergency powers were beyond presidential authority, declaring the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify sweeping import taxes unconstitutional. In its latest note, JPMorgan Chase analysts warned that the fate of many trade deals negotiated during the period when these tariffs were in effect “is in question”.
According to the note by JPMorgan, authored by Jahangir Aziz, Bruce Kasman and Nora Szentivanyi, “… many trade deals negotiated to date have relied on IEEPA tariffs and have not yet been formalised as trade agreements. With the legal basis for these tariffs now invalidated, the fate of these deals is in question. These may need to be renegotiated…”
Now, with the underlying tariff authority struck down, these pacts could require renegotiation, delaying implementation or altering terms.
In its majority opinion, the court said that IEEPA, a 1977 law granting the president limited powers in declared national emergencies, does not authorise the imposition of tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that, since Congress has explicitly delegated tariff authority elsewhere in law, it had not done so in IEEPA, and presidents cannot usurp that power by citing broad emergency authority.
The ruling has profound implications for US trade policy and global commerce. According to reports citing economists, more than $175 billion in tariff revenue collected under Trump-era tariff orders could be subject to refunds, potentially forcing companies and the federal government into protracted litigation over reimbursements.
Businesses that paid the disputed duties may seek refunds, though the path to reimbursement could be complex and costly, especially for smaller firms that face administrative hurdles and legal uncertainty even though they have been hit hardest by tariff-related price pressures.
Trump Imposes 10% Tariffs
Terming SC’s ruling as a “terrible decision”, Trump announced he would sign an executive order for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This authority allows for a temporary import surcharge (up to 15%) for 150 days to address balance-of-payments deficits.
“Effective immediately, all the national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place… Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,” he said.
‘India Deal Is On’
Trump, referring to the decision as “ludicrous”, added that this decision benefits other countries but not the US. He further alleged that the courts are “swayed by foreign interests.”
“Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They are dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long… Those justices are a disgrace to our nation… The court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think,” he said.
According to ANI, Trump specifically noted that “The India deal is on,” suggesting that recent bilateral trade agreements — including the reduction of reciprocal tariffs to 18% — would be maintained through these new legal pathways.
The ruling is expected to have wide-ranging consequences for global trade, businesses, consumers, inflation trends and household finances across the country.
Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google.
February 21, 2026, 10:24 IST
Read More
