On February 20, 2025, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, ruling in Greenonetec USA, Inc. v. United States that the statute does not authorize import duties. This decision immediately invalidated tariffs affecting over $1.2 trillion in annual trade—and exposed a compliance gap for any system still caching rates from 17 executive orders now under legal challenge across 10 federal lawsuits.

The 17 Executive Orders Under Challenge

The challenged EOs break down into four tariff categories your system must track separately. China-specific tariffs stem from EO 14195 (February 1, 2025) imposing a 10% ad valorem duty, EO 14259 (March 3, 2025) adding another 10%, and EO 14278 (April 2, 2025) layering an additional 34%—totaling 54% before the 125% escalation under EO 14298 (April 9, 2025). Each order cites IEEPA Section 1702(a)(1)(B) as authority, now ruled insufficient.

Global reciprocal tariffs under EO 14257 (April 2, 2025) applied a baseline 10% duty to imports from all countries, with higher rates for 57 nations ranging from 11% to 50%. EO 14276 specifically targeted automobiles with a 25% tariff effective April 3, 2025, covering HTS headings 8703 (passenger vehicles) and 8704 (commercial vehicles). Auto parts under Chapter 87 subheadings faced the same rate starting May 3, 2025.

Canada/Mexico USMCA Exposure: EO 14193 and EO 14194 (both February 1, 2025) imposed 25% tariffs on Canadian goods and 25% on Mexican goods, with Canadian energy products under HTS Chapter 27 receiving a reduced 10% rate. These orders were challenged separately in AIM Media Texas LLC v. Trump and Simplified LLC v. United States.

Mapping Lawsuits to Tariff Types

The 10 active lawsuits target different EO combinations. Greenonetec USA, Inc. v. United States (CIT No. 25-00041) challenged EO 14257's global tariffs. Boyang America, Inc. v. United States (CIT No. 25-00066) specifically targets China tariffs under EO 14195 and EO 14259. Flex Ltd. v. United States consolidates challenges to EO 14257, EO 14259, and EO 14276, affecting electronics manufacturers importing under HTS 8471 (computers) and 8542 (integrated circuits).

For Canadian and Mexican goods, American Institute for International Steel v. United States challenges the steel and aluminum provisions, while Mesa Agricultural Equipment, LLC v. United States targets agricultural machinery tariffs under HTS 8432 through 8436.

Rate Cache Invalidation Required: Systems caching duty rates from CBP's ACE system between February 4, 2025 and February 20, 2025 may contain IEEPA-based rates now ruled unlawful. HTS codes in Chapters 72, 73, 76, 84, 85, 87, and 98 require immediate revalidation against post-ruling CBP guidance.

Classification System Implications

The ruling does not affect Section 301 tariffs (19 U.S.C. § 2411), Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum (19 U.S.C. § 1862), or standard MFN rates under Column 1 General. Your classification engine must distinguish between these statutory authorities when calculating landed costs. IEEPA-based additional duties appeared in the HTS General Notes and Chapter 99 subheadings—specifically 9903.01.25 through 9903.01.34 for recent China actions.

For Canadian tariff data, the Customs Tariff remains unaffected by U.S. court rulings, but retaliatory measures under Canada's Customs Tariff Act Section 53 may require separate tracking. Canadian surtaxes of 25% on $155 billion in U.S. goods took effect March 4, 2025, under SOR/2025-25.

Live US HTS and Canadian tariff data via API — start a free trial.

Found this useful? Forward to your team → ·Share on LinkedIn →