After IEEPA: Industry Voices and Insider Perspectives on the Supreme Court Tariff Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs has triggered a fresh round of analysis across global supply chains. On paper, the ruling invalidates the legal basis for a wide range of country specific and emergency related duties imposed over the past year. In practice, however, the implications are more nuanced and, for operators, far less relieving than headlines might suggest.

At the regulatory level, the immediate message has been procedural clarity rather than policy shift. Responding to a media inquiry, Claire Huber, Public Affairs Officer at the U.S. International Trade Commission, emphasized institutional boundaries:

“While the U.S. International Trade Commission maintains the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, it does not formulate tariff or trade policy. Therefore, the USITC has no comment on potential next steps following the ruling.”

Operational guidance instead came via U.S. Customs and Border Protection, confirming that duties imposed under the relevant executive orders will no longer be collected for goods entered for consumption on or after February 24, 2026. Importantly, the executive action affects IEEPA duties only. Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs remain in force.

For supply chain professionals, that distinction is critical. The removal of one legal instrument does not equal a dismantling of the broader tariff architecture.

Freight Markets: Relief on Paper, Uncertainty in Practice

The clearest articulation of this dynamic came from Freightos, which closely tracks freight rates and trade flows. Judah Levine, Head of Research, framed the ruling as a structural adjustment in authority rather than a meaningful easing of trade barriers.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the use of IEEPA wipes out the legal basis for most of last year’s tariffs — but it doesn’t bring real relief for supply chains,” said Judah Levine, Head of Research at Freightos. “Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs remain intact, and the White House’s rapid move to impose a 15% blanket tariff largely keeps overall trade barriers in place. For many importers, the effective rate barely changes.

What does change is speed. IEEPA allowed near-instant tariff threats that immediately shifted sourcing and freight flows. Without it, policy swings may slow — but uncertainty is still very high, especially with the possibility of new Section 301 tariffs before July.

Judah Levine, Head of Research at Freightos

For shippers, this means more guesswork. Moderately lower tariffs for some origins – like the five percentage point dip for China and Vietnam duties – could trigger some frontloading as soon factories ramp up post–Lunar New Year and mean stronger volumes in the coming months than otherwise would’ve been shipped. But the reductions for tariffs for most countries probably aren’t dramatic enough to spark the kind of surge we saw last year.”

This assessment underscores two realities. First, aggregate tariff exposure remains elevated. Second, the velocity of trade policy may shift even if the direction does not.

Under IEEPA, tariff threats could be deployed almost instantly as leverage in geopolitical disputes. Without that mechanism, future actions under Section 301 require investigations and procedural steps, potentially slowing the cadence of disruption. For freight markets, slower policy velocity may temper sudden rate spikes driven by panic frontloading. Yet the structural uncertainty remains intact.

Procurement Strategy: The Damage Is Already Embedded

If freight markets are watching volume signals, procurement leaders are looking at sunk costs and structural redesign. Ivalua, a provider of enterprise procurement technology, argues that the ruling does little to reverse the strategic recalibration already underway. Alex Saric, CMO and Smart Procurement Expert at Ivalua, put it bluntly:

“The damage is already done. Companies have restructured sourcing networks, absorbed margin pressure and invested heavily in diversification. A Supreme Court reversal does not undo past disruptions or eliminate the risk of new tariffs under a different authority. Businesses that retreat back to single-region sourcing to chase short-term cost relief risk repeating the same vulnerability. Trade volatility isn’t an occasional shock anymore; it’s a permanent operating reality. CPOs should treat this moment not as relief, but as validation of the need for dynamic supply chain planning.”

For chief procurement officers, this is perhaps the central takeaway. Over the past two years, organizations have invested in dual sourcing, nearshoring pilots, supplier mapping tools and tariff impact modeling. Those investments were justified by volatility, not solely by tariff levels.

Alex Saric, CMO and Smart Procurement Expert at Ivalua

Rolling back diversification to capture a marginal cost improvement would expose firms to renewed concentration risk should alternative trade authorities be activated. The ruling does not eliminate the probability of new duties under Section 301 or other statutes. It simply changes the mechanism.

Wait and See: How Corporates Are Reacting

At LightSource, which provides procurement visibility and analytics across large enterprises, the observed response has been measured rather than reactive. Spencer Penn, CEO and co founder, describes a corporate landscape wary of overcorrecting.

“The interesting thing about tariffs is how little many of our customers actually reacted in terms of immediate structural change. They were very aware, they were hit by them, they had war rooms about it, but volatility is more dangerous than cost. The question is whether these tariffs are here to stay or whether they are going to leave. When things are changing on a weekly basis, it is very difficult for businesses to make decisions around optimizing tariffs.

Spencer Penn, CEO and co founder of LightSource

Many of the Fortune 500 companies we work with took a wait-and-see approach. Because of the pace of change, it’s difficult to make optimizations based on the realities of that week, especially when it is unclear whether a 50% tariff is bona fide or negotiating leverage aimed eventually to land closer to 10%. Our customers typically follow three steps: Measure, assess, and mitigate.”

This structured approach reflects operational pragmatism. Measurement involves identifying exposure by supplier, component and country of origin. Assessment requires scenario modeling across base, conservative and optimistic cases. Mitigation may include supplier substitution, component redesign or the use of duty drawback programs.

Penn also highlights a structural vulnerability: concentration in critical components. For sectors dependent on rare earths or advanced electronics, tariffs intersect with availability risk. Even a small percentage shift can be existential for low margin businesses where each percentage point directly impacts P&L.

Refunds, Cash Flow and Administrative Friction

Beyond forward looking strategy lies the immediate question of refunds. Importers who paid IEEPA based duties may seek reimbursement, but the process is neither automatic nor guaranteed. Customs authorities have indicated that procedural updates will follow, yet the administrative burden could be significant.

For finance teams, this introduces another layer of uncertainty. Potential refunds represent contingent assets. Timelines could stretch months or longer depending on claim volume, documentation quality and possible litigation. Working capital planning must therefore treat refunds as uncertain rather than imminent.

The broader lesson is that legal reversals do not translate into immediate balance sheet normalization. Companies must manage liquidity with conservative assumptions until processes are clarified.

What Professionals Should Watch Next

For logistics managers, the key indicators will be booking patterns from Brazil, China and Vietnam, where effective tariff adjustments differ. Moderate frontloading could emerge as factories ramp post Lunar New Year, but without the extreme spikes seen in prior waves.

For procurement leaders, the priority remains structural resilience. Scenario modeling should incorporate the possibility of Section 301 expansions before mid year. Supplier negotiations should balance short term cost opportunities with long term flexibility clauses.

For CFOs, sensitivity analyses around tariff exposure must remain active. Even if effective rates decline slightly on average, country specific changes can materially affect product categories.

And for compliance teams, attention must shift to classification accuracy and refund eligibility documentation. The termination of IEEPA collections does not reduce scrutiny under other regimes.

A Slower Shock, Not a Stable Environment

The Supreme Court ruling alters the legal toolkit available for rapid tariff deployment. It may slow the tempo of geopolitical trade shocks. But it does not dismantle the existing tariff landscape nor eliminate political incentives to use alternative authorities.

In that sense, the most consistent theme across regulators, freight analysts and procurement technology providers is continuity of volatility.

Trade policy has become an operational variable rather than a background assumption. The immediate headlines may suggest relief. The deeper consensus among practitioners suggests something different: a recalibration of speed, not a restoration of stability.

For supply chain professionals, the mandate remains unchanged. Build optionality. Model multiple futures. Protect margin. And assume that trade turbulence, even if procedurally constrained, is here to stay.