The United States Supreme Court ruled on 20 February 2026 that President Donald Trump lacked statutory authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), blocking his signature trade lever in Case No. 24-1287.

The ruling did not end the trade fight. Three days later, on 24 February, the administration imposed a 15% import surcharge under section 122 of the US Trade Act, valid for 150 days. The White House later clarified the initial rate as 10%. Section 122 authorises temporary tariffs to address "significant balance-of-payments problems."

What did the court decide?

A Bruegel analysis published after the ruling called the decision "a strong affirmation of the rule of law and the separation of powers." The Trump administration's response — substituting a different statutory basis for the IEEPA levies — has injected fresh unpredictability into US trade policy.

How does this affect the EU's Turnberry deal?

The August 2025 Turnberry framework agreement capped EU-US tariffs at 15% in both directions. Bruegel finds the new section 122 surcharge "clearly breaches Turnberry," because duties under the surcharge would exceed the deal's ceiling for most products. Section 232 tariffs on cars and steel, and products exempted under other framework deals, fall outside the surcharge.

Congress will not extend the surcharge beyond 150 days, the think tank concludes. The administration will therefore need other legal authorities — sections 301 and 232 of US trade law — to keep pressure on trading partners.

What is Washington's next legal move?

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said section 301 investigations will cover most major trading partners and will address areas including "pharmaceutical pricing practices, discrimination against U.S. technology companies and digital goods and services [and] digital services taxes." Section 301 authorises tariffs or other restrictions against "unjustifiable, unreasonable, discriminatory, and burdensome acts policies or practices" by trading partners.

For the EU, those inquiries could reach legislation on which Turnberry made no commitments, including EU digital regulation. If Washington applies or threatens tariffs in response, the analysis argues, that posture would breach Turnberry and amount to coercion — potentially triggering the EU's Anti-Coercion Instrument.

What tools does Brussels have?

The European Parliament is preparing to suspend ratification of Turnberry unless the US commits to keep tariffs within the agreed 15% ceiling. The EU holds a dormant retaliation list covering €93 billion of US imports that it suspended under Turnberry and could reactivate against any new section 232 duties or car-tariff increases.

Brussels is also weighing the Anti-Coercion Instrument, Regulation (EU) 2023/2675. Under the ACI, the Commission can take retaliatory steps covering "trade in goods, services, foreign direct investment, financial markets, public procurement, trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, export controls, and more."

The Commission should also press at the World Trade Organization for an IMF determination on whether US reserve conditions justify the balance-of-payments exception under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Bruegel urges coordination with like-minded partners on common red lines.

What does the ruling change for practitioners?

Trade counsel should expect tariff exposure to shift rapidly across statutory bases over the next 150 days. The Turnberry ceiling no longer binds while section 122 remains in force. Companies should map product-by-product exposure under the surcharge, the section 232 carve-outs, and pending section 301 inquiries. Compliance teams should monitor WTO channels for any EU action tied to the balance-of-payments exception.

Key dates

• 20 February 2026: US Supreme Court ruling in Case No. 24-1287
• 21 August 2025: Turnberry framework agreement between the EU and US
• 24 February 2026: Section 122 import surcharge takes effect