(Not So) Fun Fact: With the Supreme Court releasing decisions tomorrow around 10 am EST, there is a chance we’ll see its final ruling on the legality of the administration’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs.

Rolling Back Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

What’s Happening: Late last week, the Financial Times reported that the Trump Administration is planning to revamp its 50-percent steel and aluminum tariffs, with the likely goal of reducing consumer costs. These tariffs – imposed to a far lesser degree during President Trump’s first term – were raised to 25 percent on all trade partners back in March 2025 and were doubled to 50 percent in June. Currently, this tariff is imposed on the steel and aluminum content of a wide variety of products. This means that importers and other affected parties must know what percentage of their imported products’ value comes from the impacted metal. This has become increasingly important as the administration introduced the new “inclusion process,” which allows U.S. businesses to lobby for products to be hit with these tariffs. As long as businesses cite a national security concern, foreign products such as bicycle parts, washing machines, and other imported consumer goods can be – and are being – taxed based on their metal content.

Why It Matters: The Trump Administration has shown once again it is willing to backpedal on its trade agenda to mitigate the impact its tariffs have on consumer prices. The policy shift would reportedly break up imports into different categories with separate, more simplified tariff rates. Consumer-facing goods with steel and aluminum content would face a 15-percent tariff applied to the entire value of the product rather than just the metal content. Intermediate goods would have a 25-percent tariff while industrial goods and construction materials would face the full 50-percent rate. Additionally, there may be new exemptions for certain products that have been added to the steel and aluminum tariff list via the “inclusion process.” This shift would be a serious boon for U.S. businesses that have had to face higher input costs as well as those indirectly impacted by the tariffs on steel and aluminum content. In some instances, however, tariffs may be higher than they otherwise would be due to the fact this tariff will now be based on overall value rather than the percentage of metal content. This simplification will make it easier for customs, paperwork, and tracking purposes which an official from the administration admitted “is too complicated to enforce.”

Looking Ahead: While an updated steel and aluminum policy has yet to be implemented, President Trump has already reversed course on agricultural tariffs and beef imports. This indicates a steel and aluminum policy change is highly possible, especially now that rising consumer prices are in the spotlight. The Shipment suspects this proposal is one of many ideas under discussion, with another potential option being lower tariffs for select countries that combat transshipment concerns from third countries. For instance, lower tariff rates or quotas could be imposed on the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and other countries that both had agreements prior to Trump’s second term and have struck new trade deals in the last year.

A Supreme Court Decision on IEEPA?

What’s Happening: The Supreme Court is expected to release decisions tomorrow, with speculation that the Court may have a final ruling on President Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. This comes after oral arguments were heard last November and multiple non-IEEPA decisions were released in January. Whenever it comes, the ruling will apply to the tariffs imposed on “Liberation Day” and the fentanyl-related tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China – which comprise the bulk of the Trump Administration’s tariff agenda. The decision will also have ramifications for the president’s various tariff threats – such as on countries trading with Iran – as well as whether U.S. companies receive tariff refunds.

Why It Matters: A final decision on IEEPA is important for several reasons, the number one being a lessening of tariff uncertainty for U.S. businesses and consumers. No matter which way the Court rules, it will finally provide some degree of clarity for businesses trying to decide whether to plan for higher input costs – and raise prices – or hold steady and wait to receive import tax refunds. Consumers will also be able to better determine if prices will continue to rise throughout the year as unpredictable tariff costs are passed along through the supply chain. Make no mistake: The White House has made clear its intent to impose tariffs through other statutory mechanisms if the Supreme Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs. But at a minimum, those alternate tariff tools generally come with limits, timelines, and options for legal challenge. The way the president has used IEEPA offers none of that.

If the Supreme Court rules against President Trump’s use of IEEPA, it would remove over $200 billion in annual tariff costs according to the Shipment’s calculations. It may also result in tariff refunds for importers that have paid $130 billion in IEEPA tariffs since January 2025. Striking down IEEPA tariffs would also reinforce Congress’ constitutional authority over taxation and trade policy, limiting the Trump Administration’s tariff pathways going forward. Although unlikely, it is possible that the Court upholds IEEPA tariffs by accepting that executive authority allows for these sorts of trade measures to respond to national emergencies. The tariffs in question, however, are virtually boundless and open-ended measures with no real guardrails in place, providing the president enormous economic power compared to the legislative branch.

Looking Ahead: It is anyone’s guess whether the ruling will be released tomorrow or if officials, analysts, and businesses will have to continue to hold their breath. Prediction markets currently show a 26 percent chance the Court upholds the president’s use of IEEPA for these tariffs, which is relatively unchanged from the beginning of the year. The Shipment has continuously counseled cautious optimism in this case as the Court is likely to strike down IEEPA tariffs – but it may be a closer decision than many hope it to be. Additionally, it is possible that the decision has been delayed because it is not a black-and-white ruling. There may be a scenario where the Court rules the “Liberation Day” tariffs are illegal but the fentanyl-related emergency tariffs are not struck down.