On February 20 local time, the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling regarding the tariff powers of the Trump administration.
According to CCTV News, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the large-scale tariff measures implemented by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) lack clear legal authorization.
This ruling has pushed a series of recent trade agreements reached by the U.S. with multiple parties into an &#34;uncertain zone.&#34; What the market is now more concerned about is: which tariff levels are being removed, which remain effective, and whether the agreed tax rates still hold.
<h2>Tariff &#34;Layered Cake&#34;: What is the current status of the original agreements?</h2>
According to media analysis, many agreements reached by the U.S. in recent months have set tariffs &#34;at around 15% or 20%&#34; in exchange for commitments from the other party regarding trade conditions, investment, and more; however, the Supreme Court's ruling necessitates a reclarification of the legal basis and execution path for these arrangements.
Reports indicate that the ruling &#34;casts doubt on the fate of a series of trade agreements.&#34; When asked about the status of the agreements at a press conference, Trump stated that &#34;some agreements will continue to be effective,&#34; but did not elaborate further.
From various regions, the report provides clues on &#34;potentially affected/limited impact&#34; as follows:
<ul>
<li>European Union: Uncertainty in Agreement Execution</li>
</ul>
Last year, the EU reached an agreement with the U.S. to cap tariffs at 15%, in exchange for the EU's commitment to purchase $750 billion worth of U.S. energy and increase $600 billion in investments.
However, the agreement has not been fully implemented. The Federation of German Industries (BDI) urgently called on Friday for the EU to clarify the ruling's impact on trade agreements with the Trump administration, as the business community urgently needs &#34;reliable trade conditions.&#34;
<ul>
<li>Canada and Mexico: Relatively Safe</li>
</ul>
As the largest trading partners of the U.S., Canada and Mexico are the least affected by this ruling.
Reports indicate that the ruling has &#34;little impact&#34; on Canada, as most tariffs currently in effect are on industries such as steel and aluminum, which are not covered by this ruling; furthermore, about 90% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are currently duty-free under the USMCA.
Regarding Mexico, over 80% of Mexico's exports are already duty-free under the North American trade arrangement; however, tariffs on industries such as steel, aluminum, copper, heavy trucks, cork wood, and wood products remain in effect.
<ul>
<li>Japan: Huge Investments Cannot Change Tariff Status</li>
</ul>
Japan previously agreed to fund $550 billion in projects in the U.S. in exchange for a package tariff of 15%. Despite the ruling, Japanese officials believe there is little room for renegotiating investment commitments. To explain to the Japanese public, Tokyo is attempting to package these agreements as &#34;win-win&#34; projects, such as the recently announced $36 billion investment commitment, primarily for the construction of a natural gas power plant in Ohio.
<ul>
<li>South Korea: Urgent Stabilization, Insisting Overall Framework Remains Unchanged</li>
</ul>
South Korea previously agreed to invest $350 billion in exchange for reducing tariffs to 15%. After the ruling, the South Korean government held an emergency meeting on Saturday to assess the impact. [The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy of South Korea stated that although the ruling invalidates the 15% reciprocal tariff, industry-specific tariffs on automobiles and steel remain effective.](https://wallstreetcn.com/articles/3765928?
The South Korean government is attempting to stabilize market expectations, emphasizing that despite increasing uncertainty regarding exports to the U.S., the overall framework of export conditions guaranteed under the Korea-U.S. tariff agreement &#34;will remain unchanged.&#34; Additionally, South Korea has committed to continuing dialogue on previously signed trade agreements and closely monitoring the subsequent impacts of the new 10% global tariff introduced by Trump.
Southeast Asia and India: Some rejoice, some worry
<ul>
<li>
Southeast Asia: Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia previously faced extremely high tariff threats (up to 49%), which have now been reduced to about 19%. Indonesia just signed a trade agreement on Thursday. For the region, known as the &#34;world factory&#34; for footwear, furniture, and clothing, the ruling may provide a brief respite but also increases uncertainty about &#34;how to impose tariffs next.&#34;
</li>
<li>
India: Trump previously ended the punitive tariffs of 50% on India, replacing them with an 18% tariff, on the condition that India stops purchasing Russian oil and buys $500 billion worth of U.S. goods (including agricultural products). This agreement involves sensitive agricultural interests within India, making enforcement extremely challenging.
</li>
</ul>
<img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/dcc96477-2ae0-48b7-bc63-849b15fb4dd2.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/dcc96477-2ae0-48b7-bc63-849b15fb4dd2.png"/>
<h2>Which tariffs have been overturned? Which remain in effect?</h2>
The direct result of the Supreme Court ruling is the rejection of large-scale tariff measures under the IEEPA; however, this does not mean that the U.S. tariff system is &#34;zeroed out.&#34; Trump clearly stated after the ruling that he would pass the &#34;baton&#34; of tariffs to other statutes while retaining existing industry and trade investigation tools.
<blockquote>
According to CCTV News, on Friday, February 20, local time, Trump stated that he would sign an order to impose an additional 10% tariff on global goods based on the conventional tariffs already imposed, in accordance with Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. This 10% tariff policy is expected to take effect &#34;in about three days.&#34;
According to CCTV News, when asked whether he would request Congress to take further action on broadly imposed tariffs, Trump replied, &#34;I don't need to. (The authority sought) has already been approved.&#34;
According to CCTV News, Trump made the above statement during a press conference after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that his tariff policy was illegal. He stated that he would initiate multiple investigations to provide a basis for implementing other tariff measures and also indicated that all tariffs imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and the so-called &#34;national security tariffs&#34; imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 remain in effect.
</blockquote>
For the market, this means two key signals: first, &#34;the rejected legal source&#34; does not equate to &#34;the disappearance of tariffs&#34;; second, short-term tax rates depend on the implementation details under the new legal sources and their parallel relationship with existing 232 and 301 tariffs.
<h2>Goldman Sachs: Uncertainty is far from over</h2>
Wall Street Journal wrote that Goldman Sachs, in its report on the tariff hearing in November 2025, indicated that even if U.S. courts reject IEEPA tariffs, the government could rely on other statutes to &#34;replace most tariffs.&#34;
, and judge that &#34;the actual tariff rate may only decrease by about 1 percentage point.&#34;
At the same time, Goldman Sachs expects that by the time of the ruling, &#34;the amount of tariffs already collected will reach USD 115-145 billion,&#34; and the refund process may take months or even longer, highly dependent on subsequent legal actions.
Goldman Sachs pointed out that the current U.S. government has various alternative tools at its disposal:
<blockquote>
If the Supreme Court rules that the IEEPA tariffs are invalid, the Trump administration may utilize other authorizations to replace most of the tariffs. Other statutes the government can rely on include: Section 122 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. These statutes authorize the president to impose tariffs under specific circumstances (such as addressing trade unfairness or international balance of payments deficits).
</blockquote>
Perhaps for the market, the market volatility and inflationary pressures brought by tariffs will continue to exist, and the so-called &#34;good news&#34; is more of a legal victory rather than a substantial economic decoupling. Goldman Sachs analysts stated:
<blockquote>
&#34;The ultimate result may be a slight reduction in tariffs for a few small trading partners, while the net impact on major trading partners is negligible.&#34;
</blockquote>

.DJI

.DJU

.SPX

Trump has implemented a new law imposing a 10% tariff globally, raising serious doubts about the effectiveness of the "investment for tariff" agreements reached between the United States and major trading partners such as the European Union, Japan, and South Korea. The overturning of the old law combined with the introduction of new tariffs has led to significant execution uncertainties regarding commitments such as energy procurement by the EU and investments worth hundreds of billions from Japan and South Korea. The actual trade pressure on various countries may not have diminished. Goldman Sachs previously assessed that "the actual tariff rate may only decrease by about 1 percentage point."

- On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration lacked clear legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose substantial tariffs.  
- This decision raises uncertainty about numerous trade agreements, as various tariffs previously established will need to be reevaluated, affecting trade conditions with regions like the EU, Canada, Mexico, and Japan.  
- Although the ruling nullifies specific tariff measures, Trump plans to impose an additional 10% tariff on global goods under the Trade Act of 1974, maintaining the uncertainty and complexity of the current tariff landscape.

The Supreme Court rejected, and Trump added again! What are the current tariff rates in the United States?