Maritime Legal Update – February 2026
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down “Trump Tariffs”
– Implications for Maritime Trade and Cargo Settlements
1. Landmark Constitutional Ruling
In Learning Resources et al. v. Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3
that the executive branch exceeded its constitutional authority by imposing
broad global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
(IEEPA) of 1977.
The Court held that while IEEPA allows regulation of property during
national emergencies, it does not authorize the President to impose sweeping
and indefinite tariffs without explicit congressional approval.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that
the authority to “lay and collect taxes, duties, and imposts” is vested
exclusively in Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
2. Immediate Legal and Economic Impact
The ruling effectively nullifies the “reciprocal” tariffs and emergency
duties imposed on goods from China, Mexico, and Canada since 2025.
However, tariffs imposed under other statutory authorities (such as
Section 301) remain intact. The administration is expected to rely on these
alternative frameworks.
The decision casts doubt over more than USD 130 billion in duties
already collected, triggering demands for comprehensive refunds.
3. Implications for Maritime Trade
3.1. Refund Claims and Cargo Settlements
For carriers, cargo interests, and insurers, the decision raises
significant issues regarding: refund entitlement for shipments arriving on or
after March 1, 2025; allocation of tariff costs embedded in freight and cargo
settlements; the proper claimant in refund proceedings.
3.2. Assignment of Rights in Settlement
Agreements
We previously recommended that settlement agreements involving cargo
affected by the tariffs include an:
“assignment of rights” provision transferring the right to seek tariff
refunds to the carrier.
This recommendation remains highly relevant, particularly in
large-value cargo settlements.
4. Separation of Powers and Trade Stability
The ruling reaffirms the constitutional separation of powers and limits
executive authority in tariff matters. It signals stricter judicial scrutiny of
emergency-based trade measures.
For international trade stakeholders, the decision may contribute to
greater predictability in U.S. tariff policy.
5. Strategic
Considerations for Shipping Stakeholders
Potential resumption or stabilization of U.S. trade flows;
Large-scale refund claims and possible regress actions;
Review of prior settlement agreements;
Anticipation of alternative trade measures under existing statutes.
6. Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant shift in U.S. trade
law and carries substantial implications for maritime operators and cargo
stakeholders.
Given the potential scale of refund claims and contractual ripple
effects, stakeholders should reassess settlement structures and rights
allocation mechanisms in light of this landmark ruling.