By Martin Langner, German Attorney Specialising in Bike Industry Law
The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump marks a significant check on President Trump’s authority over trade policy. For the bike industry, with its reliance on global supply chains from Asia to Europe, this decision offers short-term relief but introduces new uncertainties.
The Ruling: No Unlimited Tariffs via IEEPA
President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) twice in early 2025: for drug trafficking (25% on Canada/Mexico imports, 10-20% on China) and trade deficits (10%+ on all trading partners, up to 145% on China).
In a fragmented 6-3 decision, the Court held that IEEPA does not authorise the President to impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, or scope. Hence, all duties collected under IEEPA were unlawfully collected.
Trump’s Immediate Response: Section 122
The ruling’s ink was barely dry when the White House fired back. On the same day, President Trump signed two executive orders: one revoking most of the executive orders on IEEPA tariffs and one invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposing a 10% additional import duty on virtually all US imports for 150 days, effective February 24, 2026. These tariffs can be held in place up to 150 days, as this is the maximum duration under Section 122.
The White House stated bluntly: “The Supreme Court’s disappointing decision today will not deter the President’s effort to reshape the long-distorted global trading system.”
There are some exemptions on these additional duties, e.g. for pharmaceutical products or certain electronics. Also, products subject to the Section 232 tariffs (steel and aluminium products) are excluded. However, only the part which is subject to the 232 tariffs is excluded. If you import an e-bike with steel parts, the Section 232 tariffs apply to the steel parts, and the Section 122 tariffs to the rest of the e-bike value.
President Trump has already signalled via social media that the Section 122 rate will rise from 10% to 15%. This is the maximum allowed under Section 122, and the rise has yet to be confirmed by an executive order.
What Happens to Existing Trade Deals?
Think of it this way: Trump used IEEPA tariffs as a bargaining chip: “accept these terms or face our tariffs.” Countries like the EU, Japan, and the UK came to the table and struck deals precisely because those tariffs were hanging over them. Now the Supreme Court has ruled the tariffs illegal, the chip is gone. The deals and the presidential executive orders that implemented them were based on the IEEPA rules, now struck down by the Supreme Court ruling.
However, neither the EU-US nor the UK-US deal has been revoked yet by the US, while most other IEEPA-based executive orders have been nullified. The deals are technically still on the books. But the orders are built on IEEPA logic, meaning they will almost certainly need to be reworked from scratch to have any legal standing going forward. The EU Commission has already publicly asked Washington for “clarity,” and key MEPs are calling for a delay to the European Parliament’s ratification vote.
For “worse” trade deals, it is even more complex: The China-US deal, for example, included a 20% IEEPA tariff. But now, under Section 122, President Trump can not impose more than a 15% tariff. Obviously, President Trump can use other legal vehicles to impose tariffs, like Section 301 (tariffs as a reaction to unfair trade practices). The issue for the Trump administration is that Section 301 requires investigations, and these are conducted by a “Section 301 Committee”. For this reason, Trump is not as free to impose tariffs using this legal vehicle, and it simply takes some time to implement Section 301 tariffs. Regarding the trade deals, the big question is: What happens with deals that are worse than 15%? It is likely that the Trump administration will start several Section 301 investigations to replace the IEEPA tariffs and that Section 122 tariffs will only bridge the time until the Section 301 are formally implemented. But up until then, 15% Section 122 tariffs are the maximum permitted by law.
The bottom line for the bike industry: nobody knows right now whether the deals and tariffs will hold, disappear, or be replaced by something different. Expect a lot of uncertainty in this field in the upcoming months.
Refunds: A Procedural Mess Ahead?
The billion-dollar question: Can importers reclaim IEEPA duties? The ruling is silent on this point, but most US law firms suggest that tariffs paid under IEEPA should be subject to reimbursement. However, it is highly likely that there will be no automatic reimbursement mechanism, and importers must instead go to court to claim back their unlawfully paid tariffs. Even worse, the exact legal procedure to claim the refund is something between complex and unclear. Plus, it will be connected to attorney and court fees and may take months to years before a reimbursement will happen. Hence, this might not be for you if you only paid a small amount in tariffs. Importers interested in a refund should contact a trade attorney as soon as possible to preserve their rights.
Tariff Snapshot: Before and After the Ruling
The table below shows total applicable import duties on bicycles by country of origin, comparing the pre-ruling state (January 2026) with the new post-ruling situation (from February 24 onwards, with 15% Section 122 tariffs). The third row presumes that all trade deals still apply but are capped at 15%, while the fourth row shows results without trade deals.
Non-Electric Mountain Bikes
| Origin | Before ruling (Jan 2026) | After ruling + S.122 @ 15% | Without trade deals | Key drivers |
| EU | 15% | 15% | 26% | 11% base + 15%, but capped at 15%, provided trade deal applies |
| UK | 21% | 21% | 26% | 11% base +10% provided trade deal applies, otherwise 15% S.122 |
| Taiwan | 26% | 26% | 26% | 11% base; bilateral deal cap (15%), same as S.122 |
| China | 56% | 51% | 51% | 11% base + 25% S.301 +15% S.122 |
| Vietnam | 31% | 26% | 26% | Trade deal was 20% |
| Cambodia | 30% | 26% | 26% | Trade deal was 19% |
Note on road bikes: Lightweight road bikes under 16.3 kg (HTS 8712.00.25) carry a 5.5% base duty instead of 11%, reducing totals by 5.5 pp across all origins.
Outlook for European and Asian Bike Exporters
For European brands exporting to the US, the ruling removes the IEEPA wildcard, but Section 122 immediately replaces much of it. For Asian manufacturers and assemblers outside of China, there might be a period of relatively low tariffs ahead. China remains structurally disadvantaged due to Section 301 tariffs even after the IEEPA layers are peeled back.
The core message for bike industry supply chain teams: tariff risk has not gone away, it has merely changed its legal form. A diversified supply chain is still the best option to protect your business from the worst tariff issues.
Martin Langner advises bicycle manufacturers, importers, and distributors on regulatory compliance, product liability, and international trade law.