This morning, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration exceeded its authority when it imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly every U.S. trading partner throughout the first 13 months of the Trump administration. The sweeping tariffs were enacted under authority assumed through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). Over the past year, IEEPA-based tariffs became a central pillar of the White House’s trade strategy. Administration officials, including U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, relied on the tariffs as negotiating leverage in pursuing new trade agreements and reshaping existing trade relationships. The landmark case, Learning Resources, Inc Et Al. v. Trump, arose from a lawsuit filed by a coalition of businesses that argued the President lacked clear congressional authorization to impose tariffs under IEEPA.
In the Court’s 170-page opinion, the 6-3 majority rejected the government’s argument that IEEPA provides the President with authority to implement broad-based tariffs. “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word ‘regulate’ to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. He concluded plainly: “We hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” At its peak, the administration invoked IEEPA authority to impose tariffs as high as 145% on China. Tariffs on Mexico were set at 25%, while Canada’s rate reached 35% for imports not compliant with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement.
As of December 2025, IEEPA tariffs at varying rates were applied to an estimated 27% of all imports. Approximately half of all imports entered the United States duty free, while the remainder were subject to industry-specific measures, including Section 232 tariffs, Section 301 tariffs as well as countervailing and antidumping duties and other duties and charges.
Notably, today’s ruling does not reverse duties imposed under other statutory authorities available to the President. This includes the approximately 35% combined antidumping and countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber, the 10% global Section 232 tariff on softwood lumber, and the 50% global Section 232 tariff on steel and aluminum imports.
Since the beginning of the administration, NLBMDA has consistently advised the adoption of a trade strategy grounded in long-term predictability and certainty rather than one that creates market volatility and passes increased costs down the supply chain. Through member surveys conducted throughout last year, we heard firsthand about the impact of an uncertain trade environment has on our industry, including overseas shipments rejected after tariff rates were modified mid-transit and customers exercising greater caution in purchasing decisions amid uncertainty about potential new levies.
NLBMDA has communicated these concerns to policymakers, emphasizing the effects of trade policy on housing affordability, supply chain stability, and the broader lumber and building materials industry. |
Statement from NLBMDA President Jonathan Paine on SCOTUS Tariff Ruling:
“Today’s decision reinforces the importance of clear statutory authority and long-term predictability in trade policy. Lumber and building material dealers operate within a supply chain that depends on stability; sudden shifts in tariff policy impose real costs on dealers, their customers, and the broader residential and commercial construction industry. Trade policy should provide certainty, not volatility. While significant trade measures remain in place, this ruling offers needed clarity and an opportunity to pursue a more durable, transparent approach that supports housing affordability and strengthens domestic supply chains.
NLBMDA will continue to advocate strongly for the exemption of lumber and building materials from existing and future trade actions to help ensure price stability for critical residential and commercial construction inputs. This approach would advance our shared goal of improving housing affordability and creating the conditions necessary to support increased homebuilding and construction activity.” |
Beyond IEEPA, the administration has several other legal pathways to impose duties on imports, but each is more structured and typically slower-moving than an emergency-based IEEPA action, and few offer the same ability to apply sweeping, across-the-board tariffs on short notice.
For example, Section 232 tariffs must be supported by a national security finding following a formal Commerce Department investigation. Section 201 tariffs require the U.S. International Trade Commission to determine that increased imports are a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to a domestic industry. Section 301 tariffs require a USTR investigation and a determination that a foreign country’s acts, policies, or practices are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, a process that includes public notice and formal findings.
The administration has signaled that it may pursue these alternative authorities to reassert trade measures previously implemented under IEEPA. NLBMDA will continue to closely monitor these developments and assess their potential impact on the lumber and building materials industry. |
|
