Currents Ep336: Supreme Court Strikes Down Tariffs

Host: Todd Alexander (Norton Rose Fulbright)
Guest: Stefan Reisinger, Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright
Date: February 20, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision to strike down the Trump administration’s global tariffs—an anticipated, sweeping ruling that simultaneously removes current tariffs and questions the executive’s future tariff authority under the IPA statute. Host Todd Alexander and partner Stefan Reisinger explore the decision’s background, implications for project developers and importers, anticipated legal and administrative fallout, and what the business community should do next.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background: The Struck-Down Tariffs

• What Tariffs Were Involved?
  • Imposed under the IPA statute by the Trump administration (and continued by the Biden administration).
  • Included reciprocal tariffs on most countries, fentanyl tariffs on China, Canada, Mexico, tariffs on Brazilian goods related to prosecution of Yair Bolsonaro, anti-democratic measures concerning the High Tort, and tariffs on Indian goods due to Russian oil purchases.
  • Recent threats of tariffs on countries dealing with Iran or Cuba.
• Scope of Decision
  • The Supreme Court ruled the President does not have power to issue tariffs under the IPA statute.
  • Tariffs under other statutory provisions, like steel/aluminum tariffs (Section 232) or Section 301 tariffs on China, are not affected.
• Memorable Quote:

  “The court did not take a middle ground. It very conclusively ruled that the US President does not have the power to issue any tariffs under the IPA statute.”
  — Stefan Reisinger [01:15]

2. Immediate Implications: Retroactive and Prospective Impact

• Invalid Since Inception
  • All IPA-based tariffs are invalid not only going forward but since their imposition.
  • Other statutory tariffs remain untouched.
• Refunds & Chaos
  • Importers who paid the IPA tariffs are entitled to refunds.
  • Purchasers (who bought via intermediaries and reimbursed suppliers) are not eligible for refunds from the government—contractual arrangements matter.
  • Potential for significant disputes and windfalls, especially when contracts didn't anticipate refunds.

  • “...there'll have to be a lot of examination of the underlying contracts to see what they provide, if anything, with regard to refunds...”
    — Stefan Reisinger [03:24]

  • Administrative process for refunds is still unclear, likely to be complex.
• Quote Highlight:

  “It is clear in any event that the importers that paid these duties to the government will be entitled to some form of refund. Although it's a bit unsettled at the moment what the process will be...there's a lot of open questions right now.”
  — Stefan Reisinger [04:31]

3. Can the Administration Salvage the Tariffs or Delay Refunds?

• Possibility of New or Revised Tariffs
  • The Biden administration immediately announced a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974), which can last 150 days unless extended by Congress.
  • Alternative authorities exist: Section 338 (Tariff Act of 1930, up to 50% tariffs and no deadline, but legally vulnerable), and others (Section 232, Section 301), but those require procedural steps.
  • Attempt to “retroactively validate” IPA tariffs under different authority is seen as unlikely to succeed.

  • “I don't think they're going to be able to successfully sort of validate these tariffs going back retroactively and be able to avoid refunding most of that money.”
    — Stefan Reisinger [06:35]

4. Practical Forward Steps: For Importers & the Industry

• Short-Term Measures
  • Expect new investigations and a “blizzard” of new tariff actions to fill the void.
  • Refund mechanism likely handled by the Court of International Trade (CIT) and U.S. Customs; process could take years due to sheer volume.
  • Businesses must act quickly to preserve rights:
    • File post-summary corrections for open entries.
    • File protests for liquidated entries.
    • Be proactive with brokers, as processing delays are expected.

  • “...given the sheer volume of requests that brokers are going to receive, brokers are going to be incredibly delayed... It's not going to be a situation where you can go to your broker and expect them to file... the next day.”
    — Stefan Reisinger [12:47]

5. Contracts, Costs, and Messiness for Project Developers

• Contract Complexity and Lender Uncertainty
  • Default “tariff” assumptions in contracts are instantly outdated.
  • Possibility of suppliers benefiting disproportionately if refund clauses are absent; risk of disputes over who pockets the refund.
  • Lenders likely to avoid assuming cost savings until regulatory dust settles.

  • “I don't know that lenders are going to be very comfortable in the short term that any economics have changed until they see what's coming down the pipeline...”
    — Stefan Reisinger [14:34]

• Potential Windfalls & Litigation
  • Equipment suppliers may benefit if they recover refunds but have already been reimbursed by U.S. purchasers.

  • “Be a windfall, theoretically, for the equipment supplier, although I don't believe there's going to be some fights over that.”
    — Todd Alexander [15:29]

  • Reisinger’s response: “That's exactly right.” [15:39]

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• “The court did not take a middle ground. It very conclusively ruled that the US President does not have the power to issue any tariffs under the IPA statute.”
  Stefan Reisinger [01:15]

• “It is clear...that the importers that paid these duties to the government will be entitled to some form of refund...there's a lot of open questions right now.”
  Stefan Reisinger [04:31]

• “The administration has already announced...they're going to immediately impose a 10% tariff prospectively under section 1, all future imports globally.”
  Stefan Reisinger [06:18]

• “It may be the [Court] of International Trade is inclined to develop an alternative administrative process that doesn't require all these thousands of filings...some parties are still doing that even after the ruling. I've had a couple requests because they want to try and get first in line for a refund.”
  Stefan Reisinger [11:07]

• “I don't know that lenders are going to be very comfortable in the short term that any economics have changed until they see what's coming down the pipeline...”
  Stefan Reisinger [14:34]

Key Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment Description | |-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:05 | Episode introduction and background on the decision | | 01:15 | Stefan explains the scope and breadth of the Supreme Court’s ruling | | 03:24 | Discussion of the business impact, refunds, and contractual uncertainty | | 05:38 | Todd asks whether tariffs could be justified under alternate legal authority | | 06:12 | Stefan answers on retroactive tariff authority and refund limitations | | 07:52 | Stefan details new tariff authorities and anticipated regulatory response | | 10:35 | Steps for importers to take to preserve refund rights | | 12:47 | Administrative backlog and advice for working with brokers | | 13:41 | Implications for project development contracts and financing | | 14:34 | Lenders’ likely response and contractual “windfalls” | | 15:29 | Discussion of equipment supplier windfalls and likely disputes | | 15:51 | Closing thoughts; both agree on the coming mess |

Tone and Final Thoughts

The conversation is candid, detailed, and forthright about the confusion and legal complexity that will dominate the tariff landscape in both the immediate and longer terms. Both experts emphasize the need for proactive, detail-oriented contract analysis and administrative action, while also stressing patience due to inevitable delays, scrutiny, and disputes.

Conclusion:
This episode is essential listening for importers, project developers, and finance professionals impacted by U.S. tariffs. Key takeaway: act quickly but prepare for years of procedural and contractual turbulence following this sweeping Supreme Court decision.