---
title: "The U.S. Supreme Court overturns \"reciprocal tariffs,\" what will happen next?"
description: "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was illegal, and the market is paying attention to the subseque"
type: "news"
locale: "en"
url: "https://longbridge.com/en/news/276508668.md"
published_at: "2026-02-21T08:55:13.000Z"
---

# The U.S. Supreme Court overturns "reciprocal tariffs," what will happen next?

> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was illegal, and the market is paying attention to the subsequent impacts. Trump will sign an executive order to implement a 10% global uniform tariff. Although the legal basis of the IEEPA has been overturned, the tariffs under Sections 232, 301, and 201 remain unaffected. Analysts from HSBC and UBS believe that the government may choose not to replace the rejected tariffs, which could lead to a reduction in the weighted average tariff rate to 7.2%, impacting GDP and inflation

After the Supreme Court rejected the legal basis for tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the market's focus shifted from "Are the tariffs still in place?" to "Will there be refunds, how will the legal provisions change, and are the trade framework agreements still valid?"

According to CCTV News, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on February 20 that the Trump administration's imposition of tariffs on U.S. imports under the IEEPA was "illegal." In a subsequent press conference, Trump responded that he would sign an executive order that day to implement a "10% global uniform tariff" under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and announced the initiation of several so-called Section 301 investigations.

## Not all tariffs are affected

According to news from the Chase Trading Desk, HSBC's latest research report cites key points from the ruling, stating that the Supreme Court determined that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose general tariffs on imports under the pretext of "emergency." UBS added in its interpretation that Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority opinion, stated: "**The IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.**"

This means that the tariff system established by the Trump administration using the IEEPA in 2025—first imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and then expanding "reciprocal/equal tariffs" to nearly all trading partners on April 2, 2025—has had its core legal pillar removed.

**However, not all tariffs are affected. HSBC emphasized that this ruling does not impact existing:**

-   Section 232 (national security, industry tariffs)
-   Section 301
-   Section 201 (safeguards, such as solar tariffs in 2018)

## Tariff reconstruction rather than overturning

UBS believes that most IEEPA tariffs can be reconstructed using other trade authorizations, as many U.S. government officials have mentioned in recent months.

**Option 1: No alternative sought. The government may choose not to replace the rejected tariffs. In this case, the currently estimated weighted average tariff rate (WATR) of 12.9% would drop to 7.2%.** If this lower tariff level persists (although UBS believes this is unlikely), the firm estimates that actual GDP growth this year would increase by about 0.2 percentage points, and PCE inflation would decrease by about 30 basis points. By 2027, this would add about 0.1 percentage points to growth and reduce PCE inflation by about 20 basis points.

**Option 2: Plan B** However, as the firm previously pointed out, given the government's efforts and emphasis on the tariffs already implemented as an important part of its policy agenda (including recent investment deals linked to trade policy), a "Plan B" is expected. The government has other options.

-   The government could utilize the so-called Section 122 to implement a 15% comprehensive tariff within 150 days.
-   They may leverage existing findings from Section 301 investigations.

## **10% Global Tariff is Just a Transition, Is the 301 Investigation the Next Card?**

HSBC's latest research report also shows that Trump has announced a "one-size-fits-all" 10% tariff on all countries based on Section 122, and has initiated multiple 301 investigations.

The bank explains that Section 122 can be used to address international balance of payments issues, characterized by: the ability to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% on all imported goods without a consultation period, but can only be implemented for a maximum of 150 days.

-   No lengthy consultations are required like with industry tariffs;
-   But it can only be temporarily implemented for a maximum of 150 days;
-   "Uniformly applicable to all countries" also means it is less suitable as a negotiation lever to pressure a single country.

HSBC's core judgment is: **Section 122 is more like a "transitional solution." The reason is that it is "universally applicable," making it difficult to use as a negotiation threat to "escalate/de-escalate at any time" like IEEPA. A more likely path is: to use Section 122 to hold the time window while pushing for the completion of the 301 investigation, and then switch to a differentiated tariff system.**

## **Will Refunds Come? Why It May Drag Into "Years of Litigation"**

What the market is most sensitive to is not the "nominal tariff rate," but whether **tariffs already imposed need to be refunded, how much, and how to refund.**

HSBC cites estimates that by the end of 2025, IEEPA tariffs will bring in about **$133 billion** in revenue; if related revenues are retroactively denied, the potential amount that may need to be refunded could reach about **$175 billion**.

In the disagreement among Supreme Court justices, Justice Kavanaugh in his dissenting opinion reminded: "**The U.S. may need to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid IEEPA tariffs.**" He pointedly stated that the court "did not provide an operational path": "**The court said nothing today about whether the government will refund the billions already collected, and how.**"

Trump, at a press conference, attempted to downplay the short-term impact: "**The ruling did not discuss refunds.**" He stated that the related issues "are likely to be litigated for more than two years," implying that the government does not have an immediate large-scale refund plan.

UBS further mentioned that Bloomberg reported that nearly **1,000 companies** have filed related cases in the Court of International Trade (CIT) to ensure refund eligibility; the CIT had previously stated that even if tariffs have been settled, the court may still order refunds through reliquidation. But the key is: refund eligibility, scope, and timing still need to be advanced through subsequent judicial procedures.

## **Do Those "Bilateral Framework Agreements" Reached Last Year Still Count?**

HSBC points out: the Supreme Court ruling itself did not explicitly address the various arrangements reached over the past year with the UK, EU, Japan, and others. Kavanaugh in his dissenting opinion merely reminded that the ruling "may bring uncertainty to these trade arrangements." The more challenging aspect is that these are mostly "framework agreements" rather than complete trade agreements, and the president does not have the statutory authority to unilaterally implement a complete trade agreement. The framework agreements themselves may not necessarily have strong binding force. HSBC cites the example of Japan's framework agreement, where the tax rate "reduced to 15%" is still considered under the IEEPA system according to its understanding of executive orders—if the IEEPA tariffs are deemed illegal, these "post-reduction IEEPA tax rates" may also become invalid.

Trump's statement is that Clause 122 will be "uniformly applicable," but "some agreements will be retained, and some will not." One interpretation from HSBC is that the IEEPA tax rates in the framework agreements may be replaced by a unified 10% tariff; however, parts related to the 232 clause limits may still continue—provided that trade partners continue to fulfill their commitments. But if the "threat of higher IEEPA tariffs" is lost, some countries may reassess their existing commitments.

## **What it means for the market: Four lines of finance—interest rates—dollar—risk appetite**

**1) Finance: After a high increase in tariff revenue, there may be a "reversal risk."**

Data from the U.S. Treasury Department shows that tariff revenue is expected to total **$264 billion** in 2025 (approximately 0.9% of nominal GDP), significantly higher than **$79 billion** (0.3%) in 2024. HSBC states that if IEEPA-related revenues are retroactively overturned, approximately **$175 billion** could theoretically "enter dispute." However, U.S. Treasury Secretary Yellen stated at an event in Dallas that as the government uses other legal tools, tariff revenue is expected to "almost not change" in 2026.

**2) Interest Rates: The core is the marginal increase in deficit and bond issuance demand.**

HSBC believes that potential refunds and future revenue declines will increase existing high deficit pressure, pushing the yield curve steeper and tightening swap spreads; however, short-term volatility may be offset by "refund uncertainty + new tariff paths," and directional trends may be relatively limited.

**3) Dollar: Policy noise increases, soft logic strengthens.**

HSBC states that this ruling reinforces its judgment of a "soft dollar." Even if the result is not entirely unexpected, U.S. policy uncertainty may still keep the dollar relatively weak.

**4) Risk Assets: HSBC's "risk appetite view remains unchanged," even marginally positive.**

HSBC believes that the ruling has little impact on its "constructive" multi-asset view; rather, because alternative tools are not as flexible as IEEPA, it may reduce the repeated volatility of "tariff on and off," which is a marginal improvement for the corporate decision-making environment.

```

The above exciting content comes from the Wind Trading Platform.

For more detailed interpretations, including real-time analysis and frontline research, please join the【Wind Trading Platform ▪ Annual Membership】

Risk Warning and Disclaimer

The market carries risks, and investment should be approached with caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their specific circumstances. Investment based on this is at one's own risk
```

### Related Stocks

- [HSBH.US - HSBC Holdings plc ADRhedged](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/HSBH.US.md)
- [FNCL.US - Fidelity MSCI Financials Index](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/FNCL.US.md)
- [XLF.US - Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/XLF.US.md)
- [HSBC.US - HSBC](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/HSBC.US.md)
- [VFH.US - VG Financial](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/VFH.US.md)

## Related News & Research

| Title | Description | URL |
|-------|-------------|-----|
| 贝森特和沃什的 “导师”，德鲁肯米勒 Q4“精准” 开仓金融股 ETF、标普等权重 ETF 和巴西 ETF | 科技股方面，德鲁肯米勒 Q4 清仓了 Meta，加仓了谷歌与 Sea。德鲁肯米勒与贝森特、沃什的 “师徒” 关系让市场推测，“德鲁肯米勒经济学”——即反赤字、反通胀、反关税——可能通过贝森特和沃什渗透至政策制定中。 | [Link](https://longbridge.com/en/news/276214511.md) |
| 别为美最高法推翻特朗普关税高兴太早？华尔街预计市场反应或昙花一现 | 美国股债汇波动相对温和的一个重要原因是，预测市场此前已倾向于这一裁决结果，且特朗普随后表示已有备用方案。虽然特朗普至少有五种替代的法律工具重新征收关税，但无论采取何种方式，都将对长期美债的收益率构成上行压力。 | [Link](https://longbridge.com/en/news/276487370.md) |
| 高院否决、特朗普再加！美国关税税率现在变成什么样了？ | 特朗普转用新法对全球加征 10% 关税，令美国与欧盟、日本、韩国等主要贸易伙伴达成的 “投资换关税” 协议有效性受到严重质疑。旧法源被推翻叠加新关税出炉，导致欧盟能源采购及日韩千亿级投资等承诺面临巨大执行不确定性，各国的实际贸易压力或许并未 | [Link](https://longbridge.com/en/news/276508727.md) |
| 高院否决，特朗普将被迫退税！华尔街 “早就下注”，商务部长儿子甚至一度参与 | 去年 10 月投资机构以每美元 20-40 美分的折扣价从进口商手中购入关税退款索赔权，单笔交易规模多在 200 万至 2000 万美元。投资者有望获得超 8 倍回报。但退款前景仍存不确定性，涉及金额达数十亿美元，各方仍在观望。 | [Link](https://longbridge.com/en/news/276502404.md) |
| 特朗普暗示违法征收的关税不退了，美财长称今年关税收入将 “基本保持不变” | 美国总统特朗普暗示不会退还被最高法院裁定违法的关税，预计 2026 年关税收入将保持不变。特朗普计划签署行政令，对全球商品加征 10% 进口关税，取代被推翻的关税。财长贝森特表示，政府将利用替代法律权力维持关税收入，强调国家安全和财政收入不 | [Link](https://longbridge.com/en/news/276494362.md) |

---

> **Disclaimer**: This article is for reference only and does not constitute any investment advice.