A recent U.S. Court ruling has put presidential trade authority under fresh scrutiny, declaring that certain tariffs imposed without Congressional approval may be unlawful. While this decision is still subject to appeal and future clarification, it marks a potentially major shift in how U.S. trade policy could be executed going forward.

For importers, exporters, and freight forwarders, this is more than legal nuance—it’s a signal that the landscape of trade enforcement is evolving, with direct implications for cost forecasting, compliance risk, and long-term supply chain planning.

Background: What the Court Ruled

In a landmark case that has garnered significant attention in the trade and logistics community, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that the executive branch may have overstepped its constitutional authority by unilaterally imposing Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods beyond what Congress had initially authorised.

While past administrations have used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to take retaliatory trade measures, the key issue in this case was whether the continued expansion or modification of those tariffs, without Congressional oversight or a proper review period, violated the principle of separation of powers.

This decision could have ripple effects on all recent and future tariffs enacted without legislative input, especially those introduced during the Trump administration and any renewed efforts in a possible second term.

Why This Matters for Trade Professionals

At first glance, this might seem like a legal technicality, but the ruling has major implications for importers, exporters and businesses who ship globally.

1. Uncertainty Around Existing Tariffs
   If certain tariffs are deemed invalid, importers could potentially file for refunds or seek tariff relief retroactively. This creates both an opportunity and a compliance risk: companies must carefully track which product classifications and tariff rounds are impacted.
2. Tariff Volatility May Increase in Election Year
   With tariffs becoming a centrepiece of election-year rhetoric, particularly in the event of a Trump re-election, the ruling adds a layer of unpredictability. Future executive orders or trade actions could be legally challenged, delaying implementation or leading to midstream reversals.

What Should Importers and Brokers Do Now?

Whether the court decision ultimately holds or not, businesses involved in international trade need to prepare for an evolving regulatory environment. Here’s what your business can do now:

1. Audit Your Tariff Exposure

Review your import data over the past five years, especially entries subject to Section 301 and 232 tariffs. Determine:

• Which product lines were affected
• Tariff amounts paid
• Whether exclusions were applied or denied

2. Monitor Legal Developments

Stay up to date on appeals or Congressional responses. If the ruling is upheld, there may be a path to tariff refunds or revised duty rates. Consider working with a trade attorney or customs broker to identify refund opportunities under a protest or post-summary correction (PSC).

3. Engage in Strategic Sourcing

As trade policies continue to shift, companies should be proactively exploring alternative sourcing markets to reduce reliance on tariff-prone countries. Southeast Asia, India, and Latin America are increasingly part of long-term diversification strategies. Speak to our team to discuss your shipments.

4. Strengthen Compliance Documentation

Customs audits may become more aggressive if agencies feel pressure to enforce trade rules more tightly. Now is the time to:

• Ensure accurate classification and valuation
• Maintain detailed records of tariff payments
• Document your rationale for country of origin declarations

Looking Ahead: What Happens if the Ruling Sticks?

If the court’s decision is upheld through the appeals process, it could create a precedent that reshapes how U.S. trade policy is enacted. Tariffs might require formal legislative approval or tighter regulatory review processes, adding friction to what has often been a fast-moving executive-led process.

This could limit the ability of any future president to unilaterally impose trade barriers and increase the role of Congress in defining trade relationships with major partners like China, the EU, and Mexico.

For some industries, this could be stabilising, reducing the risk of sudden tariff hikes. For others, it could slow the U.S. response to unfair trade practices or geopolitical shifts.

Final Thought: Legal Wins Won’t Replace Smart Planning

Whether or not this specific court ruling survives appeal, the message is clear: Trade is becoming more politicised, more complex, and more legally contested. Forwarders and customs brokers must be ready to support clients through uncertain regulatory terrain.

The best defence is preparation—backed by strong compliance systems, proactive sourcing strategies, and close collaboration with logistics and customs professionals who know how to adapt as the rules change.

‍