Friday’s Supreme Court decision drew a bright line around trade powers: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)* is not a blank check for tariffs. That matters because investors had started treating “emergency tariffs” as a fast, flexible policy lever—one that could be turned on for trade, immigration, or geopolitics.
Then came the pivot. Within hours, the White House moved to a temporary import surcharge under Section 122* of the Trade Act of 1974. The rate was set at 10%, later lifted to 15%, with the surcharge taking effect Feb 24 for a 150-day window. The administration also signaled more probes that could tee up longer-running tariffs via other channels, like Section 301*.
Think of it like a road closure: the court blocked the express lane, but the traffic didn’t disappear—it got rerouted onto side streets. For companies, reroutes mean planning headaches: which products get repriced, how fast, and who eats the cost in the supply chain. Retailers and manufacturers may talk cautiously until they see how the new surcharge is enforced and whether competitors follow.
The wildcard is refunds. Penn Wharton estimates up to about $175 billion could be in play from reversing the struck-down tariffs, but timelines and mechanics may take a while to settle.
What to watch next: guidance language. If more firms start citing “policy uncertainty” in outlooks, markets may treat that as an earnings risk—especially for globally sourced goods.
📚 Decoder
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA): U.S. law granting emergency economic powers, not general tariff power.
Section 122: Trade Act rule allowing temporary broad tariffs for balance-of-payments issues.
Section 301: Trade law process allowing tariffs after unfair trade investigations.
⏱️ That’s this week’s Signal Spotlight.
Share if you found the info useful, and be on the lookout for your next brief from 5 Minute Markets.
Educational only—not investment advice.