The February 2026 United States Supreme Court landmark ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, has proven a short-lived triumph for importers. While the decision invalidated some of the more painful tariffs imposed in 2025 and opened the door for potential retroactive refunds, it is clear from the President’s actions in the weeks that have followed that tariffs are here to stay. In fact, immediately following the Learning Resources decision, the President implemented a temporary 10 percent global tariff.

This week, however, the Trump Administration took a more concrete step towards solidifying its tariff legacy, announcing new potential tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The Administration announced forthcoming Section 301 investigations on “structural excess capacity and production” in key manufacturing sectors across sixteen trading partners in Mexico and countries in Asia and Europe.

Section 301 Investigations

The Section 301 investigations will examine whether the acts, policies, or practices of a foreign country (1) are unreasonable or discriminatory and (2) burden or restrict United States commerce. The foreign countries that are the subject of the current round of investigations are: Mexico, the European Union, Switzerland, Norway, China, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Japan, and India. This list includes countries that recently negotiated tariff or trade arrangements with the Administration. Whether those agreements remain intact—or must be renegotiated—will depend on how each country reacts to renewed United States investigations.

While any tariffs that result from the Section 301 investigations will be harder to challenge in court than the IEEPA tariffs, importers have comparative advantages in this type of proceeding. Interested parties can be heard during the investigation process without a personal invitation to the White House. The comment period will be open between March 17 and April 15, 2026, with a hearing scheduled for May 5, 2026, where persons who have requested appearances may present testimony.

The industries affected likely also will have considerably more warning about the coming tariffs than they did under the ever-shifting IEEPA tariffs. The investigation typically must conclude after 12 to 18 months, but the U.S. Trade Representative can conclude the investigation on a shorter timeline. In either case, importers are assured more notice and may be able to make alternative plans, such as making changes to the supply chain.

Given congressional sentiment and recent court actions, stakeholders should expect significant pressure for a robust Section 301 tariff exclusion process to be implemented. In President Trump’s first term, Congress essentially forced the implementation of an exclusions process through the Congressional appropriations process, which is taking place right now.

A Transparent Tariff Strategy

Importers and American businesses that rely on imports have long been familiar with President Trump’s use of tariffs as a tool of international and economic policy. In his first term, President Trump relied on Section 301 (certain products from China) and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (steel and aluminum) to impose tariffs, all of which remain today as modified. In his second term, President Trump has used Section 232 to expand tariffs on steel and aluminum and to impose tariffs on new products, such as on automobiles and automobile parts, and has several other investigations pending.

The Administration has been transparent that a loss at the Supreme Court would not impact their tariff goals. In an interview with the New York Times in January, the U.S. Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer, indicated that new tariffs could be in place immediately, and that “[t]he reality is the president is going to have tariffs as part of his trade policy going forward.” Among the predicted tools: Section 301 (Unfair Trade Practices), Section 232 (National Security), Section 122 (Emergency Tariffs), and Section 201 (Safeguards).

Indeed, within hours of the Learning Resources decision, President Trump had imposed a 10 percent “temporary import surcharge” on all goods globally under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which limits the temporary tariff to no more than 150 days unless modified by Congress. While it is possible that President Trump will look to extend these tariffs eventually, it is more likely that these Section 122 tariffs are a stopgap while the Administration began, and continues, longer-term action under other authorities. Several Section 232 and Section 301 investigations, filed in 2025, remain ongoing.

IEEPA Refunds

New developments in the IEEPA refund proceedings are not expected to be impacted by the announcement on Section 301 tariffs but are also rapidly evolving.

While the Court of International Trade (CIT) recently ordered Customs and Border Protection (Customs) to take specific actions to automatically initiate refunds of certain IEEPA tariffs, it has amended that order multiple times. Customs’ Executive Director of the Trade Programs Directorate of the Office of Trade, Brandon Lord, testified that Customs lacks the technical capability to initiate and complete this volume of refunds but that Customs could potentially build the technical capability to issue refunds (with interest) within 45 days. On that basis, the court suspended its order and is requiring regular updates from Customs on its progress.

In its most recent progress report, Customs explained that it is developing a new system to process refund requests, the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE). They aim to build CAPE with four integrated components: (1) claim portal, (2) mass processing, (3) review and liquidation/reliquidation, and (4) refunds. Customs further represented that CAPE is 70 percent complete and on schedule to be rolled out in phases.

Government Relations and Business Strategies

In this rapidly evolving environment, businesses can have a big impact on what comes next. With no existing exclusion process in place and ongoing appropriations proceedings, Congress is likely to have more of an influence on the Section 301 process and the potential for product exclusions. Unlike the Section 232 process and implementation of tariffs under IEEPA and Section 122, the Section 301 process remains more open to Congressional impact. Companies affected by the Section 301 or seeking to have input should be engaging with Congress, participating in the comment process, and providing testimony before Congress. The Ice Miller Government Affairs & Regulatory Law Group has experience with helping clients navigate trade proceedings.

Ice Miller’s Trade Enforcement & Compliance Team can additionally help you monitor overlapping investigations, prepare public comments and testimony, identify available refunds and tariff strategies, review your supply chains for exposure, and develop pragmatic solutions for your business.

In addition, recent developments validate Ice Miller’s recommended IEEPA tariff refund strategy, which remains:

1. Know your deadlines and data: Inventory your entries to ensure you know entry dates, liquidation dates, and protest deadlines for all entries on which IEEPA-related tariffs were assessed, and start compiling your data for potential refund requests through CAPE;
2. File protests: Until Customs implements the CIT’s order, preserve your rights by filing protests within the 180-day time period following liquidation, if still open;
3. Review agreements and terms and conditions: Importers may be contractually required to refund purchasers that paid higher prices to cover tariffs; and
4. Coordinate with the Ice Miller International Trade team: The Ice Miller team is monitoring this situation closely and can help you determine your best course of action.

How Ice Miller Can Help

As businesses navigate these uncertain and rapidly changing times, the Ice Miller team stands ready to assist and provide guidance on these and other issues. Please contact Meghann Supino, Michael Stroud, Dale Stackhouse, Joe Heaton, Grace Dahm, or Emily Bullen if you believe we can help.

Resources

• Prior Ice Miller publication - Court Directs Customs to Issue Refunds of a Majority of the IEEPA-Based Tariffs
• Prior Ice Miller publication, Supreme Court Showdown Results Are In: Emergency Tariffs Rejected
• Prior Ice Miller publication, Court of International Trade Issues Surprise Ruling on Trump Tariffs: What You Need to Know
• Prior Ice Miller publication, Historic Rulings on Tariffs Set Stage for Potential Supreme Court Showdown

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader's specific circumstances.