Supreme Court ruling limits presidential tariff power, could lower Nintendo import costs

The Supreme Court ruled on Feb 20, 2026 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, voiding sweeping global orders including the so‑called “Liberation Day” tariffs and returning the question of refunds to the U.S. Court of International Trade. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6–3 opinion and stated that “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties,” warning the administration’s reading “would give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs.”

The litigation began in the U.S. Court of International Trade, where a panel unanimously found the IEEPA tariffs unlawful on May 28, 2025, and the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling on Aug. 29, 2025. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Nov. 5, 2025 in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections v. United States before issuing its decision on Feb. 20, 2026. The Court remanded the matter to the Court of International Trade to determine how and whether importers will be refunded.

Estimates of the money at stake vary by source. The Tax Foundation estimates the IEEPA program “has raised more than $160 billion for the federal government through February 20, 2026” and projected $1.4 trillion in revenue from 2026 through 2035 if the program had continued. The Associated Press framed the unresolved total as a “$133 billion question” about how much already collected will have to be returned. J.P. Morgan’s Strategic Research team, quoted by Amy Ho, put the potential refund number “over $135 billion” and said refunds could affect “more than 300,000 importers,” noting “the number of companies filing for refunds is more than 1,000 and has escalated since November.”

Practical fallout is already moving through courts and treasuries. The Supreme Court’s remand leaves the Court of International Trade responsible for procedures and eligibility for refunds, but sources and trade lawyers describe the process as unclear and potentially disorderly. Trade lawyer Joyce Adetutu said, “It’s going to be a bumpy ride for awhile.” Nevada Treasurer Zach Conine has already submitted a payment request seeking $2.1 billion to recoup tariff costs for Nevada, saying he has “a responsibility to try to recoup every single dollar that the Trump Administration takes from Nevada families.”

Analysts warn the decision does not undo economic dislocations created while tariffs were in effect. The Overseas Development Institute’s Prachi Agarwal and Bernardo Arce Fernandez conclude that “the United States gained revenue but failed to trigger structural change,” noting exporters rerouted shipments, margins were compressed, layoffs occurred, and consumers absorbed higher prices; ODI also reported the U.S. dollar weakened after the initial tariffs and again following the Supreme Court decision. J.P. Morgan emphasized operational uncertainty for importers and for refund logistics as filings climb.

For companies that import goods into the U.S., the ruling clears a legal path toward recouping some tariff payments but offers no quick timeline. The Court of International Trade now must set the refund mechanics, even as ODI reported the administration issued new and modified tariffs within hours of the ruling, leaving importers facing continued policy uncertainty even after the February 20 decision.