Search Results

Resource Article So You Want to Export Semiconductors Ashlyn Koenig Smith, Schulz Trade Law PLLC Feb 24, 2026 Download this Article Understanding the Regulatory Landscape  for Semiconductor Exports In 2024, the total export trade value of semiconductors reached $70.1 billion, making it one of the largest exporting industries in the U.S. It propels much of modern technology and plays an important role in the global economy. As such, we will discuss three U.S. agencies that may exercise authority over semiconductor transactions: the U.S. Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), and the U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The DDTC administers the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), BIS administers the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and OFAC administers economic and trade sanctions. We’ll explore each agency’s export authority, its licensing requirements and process, and potential violations under each. Although this is not a comprehensive list of the agencies that may be involved in semiconductor transactions, nor is it legal advice, understanding these agencies will help you navigate this complex process. Navigate Export Regulations with Confidence Schulz Trade Law  offers a library of Trade Law Resources. Download this article ITAR The first question to ask is whether or not the semiconductor or its technical data is listed on the United States Munitions List (USML). The USML lists items and activities pertinent to national security that pertain to defense and aerospace. It's comprised of twenty-two categories, such as Category IX: Military Training Equipment and Training, and Category XII: Fire Control, Laser, Imaging, and Guidance Equipment. Both of these categories specifically mention semiconductors. However, this list is not exclusive, and other categories may also apply. Licensing Process If a semiconductor or its technical data is listed on the USML, then it is subject to the ITAR, which means that any entity that manufactures, brokers, exports, or reexports is required to register with the DDTC . To do so, exporters must first sign up for a DECCS account here . However, registration alone does not grant export privileges. When a license is required, typically, one must apply for an export license or other authorization through the governing agency. The online registration process is recommended; however, if one’s application includes sensitive information,  a hard copy may be submitted instead. Violations ITAR violations may subject companies and individuals to civil and criminal penalties. As of January 2026, civil penalties may result in fines of $1 million+ per violation and debarment, which means the violator is prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in the exportation of defense articles and services. Criminal penalties may also result in fines of $1 million+ per violation, and/or twenty years’ imprisonment per violation, and debarment. BIS BIS has regulatory jurisdiction over items and activities subject to the EAR. 15 CFR § 734.3 specifically lists the items over which the agency has authority, which mostly pertain to items and technologies that have dual commercial and military use.  Although a license is not required for every transaction subject to the EAR, BIS maintains strict policies concerning the exporting and reexporting of semiconductors, having strengthened restrictions on semiconductor exports in December 2024. It is therefore essential to confirm if/when a semiconductor transaction requires licensing before exporting.  To determine if BIS requires a license for an export transaction, the first step is to determine whether the item is listed under the Commerce Control List (CCL) , which is organized into ten categories. To determine if an item is subject to the CCL and which category applies, consult the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN). If it is classified under an ECCN, reference the Commerce Country Chart to determine if its designated category requires licensing for a particular country.  As an example, ECCN 3B001 concerns “Equipment for the manufacturing of semiconductor devices, materials, or related equipment, as follows (see List of Items Controlled) and “specially designed” “components” and “accessories” therefor.”  An item classified as 3B001.c.1.a is controlled for National Security (NS) and is subject to Worldwide control, which means it requires a license regardless of its destination. Again, this is only one example and is not meant to advise on specific licensing processes. Additionally, the ECCN is subject to change, so just because a product isn’t currently classified under the CCL doesn’t mean that it won’t be there in the future.  In some cases, an item on the CCL may be eligible for a license exception . See 15 CFR § 740. Some exceptions may include, but are not limited to: Shipments of limited value (LVS), Technology and software under restriction (TSR), Encryption commodities, software, and technology (ENC), and License Exception Strategic Trade Authorization (STA). If a transaction qualifies, an exporter must properly document the license exception symbol along with the ECCN and keep records of the transaction in accordance with 15 CFR § 762. Exceptions are only valid when properly claimed. However, even if the item does not fall under the CCL, it may still require licensing, depending upon its end-use or end-user. Furthermore, BIS maintains a Denied Persons List (DPL) , which details entities that are denied export privileges. Exporters must screen potential transactions against the DPL to ensure export compliance in accordance with the EAR. Licensing Process If a semiconductor transaction requires licensing via BIS according to 15 C.F.R. § 730-774, exporters can apply for such licensing via the SNAP-R portal .  The status of an application can be tracked via STELA . Violations While ensuring export compliance may require companies to incur additional costs, in the long run, it can curb hefty fines and serious penalties that may result from export violations. According to the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, an EAR violation may result in penalties “of up to 20 years of imprisonment and up to $1 million in fines per violation, or both.”  OFAC OFAC regulatory jurisdiction typically relates to economic sanctions against countries, individuals or groups. Economic sanctions vary depending on the country or persons they target, but may prohibit transactions within certain sectors of a country's economy. For instance, since March 31st, 2022, E.O 14024 prohibits any significant transactions involving Russia’s electronics sector, which specifically includes semiconductors.  A comprehensive list of OFAC-sanctioned entities and the types of sanctions said entities are subject to can be found here.  Notably, OFAC does not maintain a specific country list, as those subject to such sanctions may change locations and/or conduct business in places one would not expect. Therefore, exporters must stay up-to-date on OFAC’s sanction list when determining license requirements from the agency to export semiconductors to a specific entity.  Additionally, one agency's policy change does not necessarily mean that another agency changed its policy as well. For instance, on January 13, 2026, BIS issued a rule that stated the agency will now review export licenses for semiconductors such as Nvidia H200, AMD MI325X, and similar chips destined for China on a case-by-case basis. Previously, such transactions were subject to a presumption of denial. However, even if the new policy applies to a transaction, export compliance due diligence still requires exporters to ensure an item is not destined for an OFAC-sanctioned entity. In other words,  do not assume export compliance simply because a transaction is compliant with one agency.  Licensing Process If a semiconductor transaction requires a license from OFAC, exporters can apply for such licensing here  via the agency's online portal. In the application, provide detailed, fact-based information as to the purpose of the transaction and why it requires licensing. After the application is submitted, it can be tracked through that same portal. Violations As of January 2026, those who violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA), and any other OFAC sanctions  may be subject to maximum civil penalties per violation as follows: IEEPA Violations:  $377,700 or twice the amount of the underlying transactions. TWEA Violations:  $111,308. Since a transaction may be subject to both OFAC sanctions and the EAR, it may require licensing from more than one agency. Therefore, a transaction can violate more than one agency's license requirements and, as such, may result in penalties from multiple agencies. For instance, according to an April 2023 press release via OFAC, BIS and OFAC ordered Microsoft to pay a total of $3.3 million in combined penalties for allegedly violating the EAR and OFAC sanction regulations. Conclusion In short, DDTC regulates transactions subject to the ITAR, while BIS regulates transactions subject to the EAR, and OFAC regulates transactions with sanctioned entities. Throughout the semiconductor transaction process, exporters are required to conduct thorough due diligence regarding the product's application, end use, and end user to determine if the transaction requires a license from a particular agency to export or re-export. Remember, just because an item requires a license to export through one agency does not mean that a license through another agency is not required as well.  Even though ensuring export compliance may require additional time, money, and resources, it can prevent lengthy legal proceedings and/or massive fines that may arise from export violations. For further assistance in navigating semiconductor exports, contact one of the experienced trade attorneys at If you’re ready to navigate the semiconductor export landscape effectively, reach out to our knowledgeable team today! For further assistance, contact one of the trade attorneys at Schulz Trade Law PLLC Sources U.S. Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) Link to DDTC website U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Link to BIS website U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Link to OFAC website International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) Link to ITAR regulations Export Administration Regulations (EAR) Link to EAR regulations Economic and Trade Sanctions Link to economic sanctions information Resource Library Learn more about Trade Law. We have a series of articles highlighting the key components of international trade and compliance. Contact Us Stay ahead of trade law changes! Contact us today for guidance on tariffs and regulations to safeguard your business.

Energy in Crisis: How the Conflict in Iran is Reshaping Global Trade Expert insights from Michelle Schulz on surging oil prices, insurance standstills, and the ripple effect on American consumers. Overview The intensifying conflict with Iran has sent shockwaves through the global economy, pushing crude oil prices past $100 a barrel for the first time in four years. With approximately 20% of the world’s oil supply flowing through the Strait of Hormuz , the halt of tanker traffic has created a supply bottleneck that threatens to drive up costs across nearly every sector of the U.S. economy —from transportation and manufacturing to the price of groceries. March 9, 2026 Local News Live Gray Media/TV Host: Stetson Miller The Logistics of a Standstill In a recent interview with Gray Media’s Local News Live , Michelle Schulz, founder of Schulz Trade Law, explained that the primary driver behind the sudden halt in traffic isn't just the physical conflict, but the collapse of the necessary financial and insurance infrastructure that allows global trade to function. As shipping lanes become combat zones, the cost of risk becomes prohibitive. Michelle noted the immediate impact on the maritime industry: "There was a risk that those ships would come under attack from Iran, and as soon as it seemed to become a reasonable possibility, insurers like, you know, Lloyds of London, insurers refused to insure the ships going through. And that basically stopped traffic in its tracks." This interruption is more than a logistical hurdle; it is a catalyst for broader inflation. Because oil and gas are foundational to modern industry, the spike at the pump is only the beginning. As Michelle emphasized during the segment, "Those prices are going to go up, and they will make other prices go up." Navigate Global Volatility with Confidence. In an era where geopolitical shifts can disrupt your supply chain overnight, proactive legal strategy is essential. Contact Schulz Trade Law  to discuss how we can help you mitigate risk and maintain compliance during times of global crisis. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

The Billion-Dollar Wait: Navigating Post-Ruling Tariff Refunds Why recent legal victories for Texas importers may face a long, complex road to actual reimbursement. Overview Following a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that more than $126 billion  in emergency tariffs were collected illegally, the U.S. Court of International Trade has ordered the administration to begin refunds. While U.S. Customs and Border Protection aims to begin processing these claims within 45 days, legal experts warn that the process will be neither swift nor simple. March 9, 2026 " Texas businesses could wait years for tariff reimbursements — if they come at all — despite court rulings . " Publication: Houston Public Media PBS / NPR The Challenge of Recovery While the judicial path has cleared, the administrative hurdles remain significant. Importers must weigh the benefit of a refund against the potential for increased government scrutiny. Michelle Schulz , a Dallas-based trade attorney, highlights a critical risk for businesses entering the refund system: "They will have a system whereby they’ll refund your money. The problem is, Customs is also going to be looking in that same system to see if you made any mistakes, and they can go back five years." - Michelle Schulz As the administration signals potential shifts toward new 15% global tariffs under different statutes, the actual long-term impact of these hard-won refunds remains to be seen. Protect Your Compliance Record While Seeking Redress. Navigating the refund process requires a clean five-year audit trail to avoid unexpected liabilities. Contact Schulz Trade Law today  to review your records before you file for reimbursement. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Navigating the Ripple Effects: Global Trade and the Iran Conflict The Hidden Costs of Disruption in the Strait of Hormuz Overview The current tensions in the Middle East have sent tremors through the global supply chain, extending far beyond the gas pump. As conflict disrupts one of the world's most critical maritime arteries—the Strait of Hormuz —importers and exporters face a complex landscape of rising costs and logistical hurdles. International trade attorney Michelle Schulz recently joined This Morning with Gordon Deal  to break down what this means for businesses and consumers alike. March 6, 2026 This Morning with Gordon Deal Gordon Deal Show Host: Gordon Deal While energy prices often dominate the headlines during Middle East (Iran) conflicts, the economic impact is much broader. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital transit point for a significant portion of the world's petroleum and liquefied natural gas. However, as Michelle Schulz points out, the "ripple effect" hits manufacturing and consumer goods almost immediately. The Plastic and Production Squeeze The cost of raw materials is intrinsically linked to energy stability. Because plastics are derived from petroleum and natural gas, any disruption in the Strait quickly translates to higher production costs for everything from household goods to industrial components. "Plastics are based around oil or natural gas. Heating, air conditioning, cooking—all that stuff gets more expensive when there's a shortage... anything surrounding the oil and gas industry is also going to be impacted." — Michelle Schulz Logistics and the "Plan B" Reality For companies moving goods through the region, the choice is often between high-risk transit or expensive, time-consuming detours. Safety concerns for personnel and cargo are forcing many to implement secondary logistics strategies, such as rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope. "They have to consider whether they will wait, whether it's safe for their personnel to go in those areas... they're having to reroute, and they have different routes that they pursue. They do have to make longer hours for pilots, extra jet fuel... you'll see higher shipping bills." — Michelle Schulz The Shifting Regulatory Landscape Beyond physical logistics, the legal and regulatory environment is equally volatile. Sanctions and political instability can change the viability of trade agreements and export licenses overnight, requiring businesses to be more agile than ever. "Depending on the political situation, you may or may not get your license approved. That can change from day to day... We will definitely change our advice to clients depending on the situation at the time." — Michelle Schulz Is Your Supply Chain Prepared? In a global economy, local conflicts rarely stay local. Whether you are dealing with increased shipping bills, licensing delays, or the need for alternative sourcing, having a robust legal and logistical strategy is essential. Don't wait for the next disruption to secure your trade routes.   Contact Schulz Trade Law today to review your export licenses and develop a resilient "Plan B" for your global operations. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Resource Article Recent Export Penalties and How to Avoid Them Ashlyn Koenig Smith, Schulz Trade Law PLLC Feb 24, 2026 Download this Article An Export Administration Regulations (EAR) violation can result in penalties "of up to 20 years of imprisonment and up to $1 million in fines per violation, or both.” [1]   Export violations are widely publicized, so it is paramount to stay current on recent export enforcement to avoid penalties and understand the latest trends in enforcement. Thus, we will explore two EAR violations and the penalties that followed, according to recent publicly available knowledge. We will also touch on general trends in penalty violations from court orders of the last six months, and red flags to look out for in transactions   that may require EAR licensing. Schulz Trade Law offers a library of Trade Law Resources. Download this article Recent EAR Violations: Between November 8, 2020, and July 18, 2022, Applied Materials Inc ., a semiconductor manufacturing equipment company based in California, and its subsidiary, Applied Materials Korea, based in South Korea, allegedly reexported or attempted to reexport items subject to the EAR without the proper licensing on fifty-six occasions, according to a court order released on 2/11/26. This was done even though they were informed by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) that they were required to do so when exporting or reexporting ion implanters, which are semiconductor materials, to SMIC Subsidiaries. Specifically, they violated 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(a) – Engaging in Prohibited Conduct and 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(c) – Attempting to Engage in Prohibited Conduct. The company settled and agreed to pay a fine of $252,500,300 , one of the largest fines the agency has issued thus far, and the maximum fine allowed by the Export Control Reform Act of 2018. It must also complete two internal audits of its export controls compliance program. If the company failed to abide by the conditions of the settlement, it could lose export privileges for three years. [2]   Secondly, in October of 2022, Luminultra Technologies , located in Linthicum Heights, Maryland, allegedly sent PhotoMaster luminometers and aqueous test kits to Iran, forgoing the required licensing as set out in 15 C.F.R §746.7(e). A court order released on 09/30/2025 alleged that the company knew that Iran was its product's ultimate end-user, and that this violated EAR licensing requirements, but went ahead with the sale regardless. Ultimately, Luminultra and BIS agree to settle. The company had to pay a fine of $685,051 . It was also ordered to complete an export compliance audit for 2025 and for each of the next three years, and all employees had to complete export compliance training. If the company failed to abide by the conditions of the settlement, they would be subject to lose export privileges for three years. [3]   Trends In addition to the aforementioned violations, several other EAR penalties issued between September 2025 and February 2026 had to do with firearms, their parts, accessories, and ammunition, as well as airplane parts. Many of the times, these products were sent to Russia, China, South American countries, and Middle Eastern countries. However, as the Luminultra violation demonstrates, companies should not assume that only such products require EAR licensing. Likewise, it should not be assumed that only those sending products to the aforementioned countries require licensing. Rather, companies need to be aware of their products' end users and final destinations.   Red Flags This is because potential license violations depend on one’s knowledge of the end use of their products. However, this does not mean companies or firms should intentionally blind themselves to potential red flags by discouraging buyers from sharing certain information, as this, too, may lead to penalties. Instead, the EAR highly encourages businesses and firms to become familiar with its extensive list of red flags one should be aware of when considering whether or not a product will end up in the appropriate end-user destination. [4]   Some of which include: 1 The product does not align with the buyer’s business. For instance, an aquarium attempts to order complex commercial airplane parts. 2 A buyer offers to pay cash for an expensive product when it’s typically paid for via financing. 3 The buyer evades questions concerning whether the product is for domestic use, export, or reexport. 4 A buyer declines routine installation, training, or maintenance services of a product he’s seeking to purchase. 5 A buyer wants a highly technical product shipped to a country that does not have an industry to support it. For instance , a buyer ordering semiconductor parts to a country without an electronics industry. If you have encountered a red flag, do not ship the product until it is resolved. It's generally advisable to hold the export and seek further guidance.   Conclusion While recent trends in enforcement such involving enforcement tend to involve semiconductors, firearms, and aviation, as well as countries like Russia, China, and those in the Middle East and South America, this article only scratches the surface of EAR licensing, penalties, and violations. To avoid EAR penalties, companies must be vigilant when assessing the ultimate end use of their product. For further assistance in navigating the EAR, contact one of the trade attorneys at Schulz Trade Law PLLC   [1]   Export Control Reform Act of 2018,  50 USC §§ 4801-4852 (2018). [2]   Order Relating to Applied Materials Inc. and Applied Materials Korea,  U.S Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, February 11, 2026, 2-4,14-16. [3]   Order Relating to Luminultra Technologies Inc., U.S Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, September 30, 2025,1-9. [4] 15 CFR §732 Supplement No. 3, (2026). Resource Library Learn more about Trade Law. We have a series of articles highlighting the key components of international trade and compliance. Contact Us Stay ahead of trade law changes! Contact us today for guidance on tariffs and regulations to safeguard your business.

Navigating the New Era of Trade The Founder of Schulz Trade Law shares insights on Supreme Court shifts, the 15% global tariff threat, and why "expecting the unexpected" is the only strategy for 2026. Overview In the wake of landmark judicial rulings and a rapidly shifting executive approach to international trade, businesses are facing an unprecedented administrative burden. Michelle Schulz, Founder and Managing Partner of Schulz Trade Law PLLC, has spent over two decades guiding Fortune 500 companies through these exact types of regulatory storms. In this exclusive interview, Michelle breaks down the legal complexities of 2026, from the "major questions" doctrine to the tactical necessity of supply chain diversification. Feb 23, 2026 The Briefing with Steve Scully SiriusXM POTUS Host: Steve Scully The Judicial Shake-up and Tariff Refunds The start of 2026 has been defined by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down emergency tariffs, leaving billions of dollars in duties in limbo. For importers, the question isn’t just about future strategy—it’s about recovering what was already paid. Michelle emphasizes that while the legal victory is significant, the path to a refund is far from a straight line. "The status of billions in duties remains in limbo. For many companies, the administrative burden of tracking and reclaiming these funds is extraordinary. To grow in a healthy way, leading companies are reevaluating the regulatory landscape and scaling up their compliance programs to meet these demands." The Reality of "Trump II" and Global Tariffs With the administration pivoting toward a 15% global import tax and citing new legal authorities, the cost of doing business is shifting overnight. Michelle highlights that these policies aren't just numbers on a balance sheet—they have a direct, compounding effect on everything from raw materials to consumer-facing prices. "When you think about the staggering scale of these tariffs—sometimes reaching triple digits in specific sectors—the cost will inevitably be passed down. You have to expect the unexpected; any country with a trade surplus is now an area where the government may look to offset that imbalance." Strategic Compliance in a Volatile Market For Michelle, the solution isn't just reacting to news—it's building a resilient infrastructure. Whether it’s navigating the UFLPA, country-of-origin rules, or EAR/ITAR licensing, she advocates for a proactive "solution-focused" approach that treats compliance as a competitive advantage rather than a hurdle. "There is going to be a transition period before new infrastructure is in place. Companies must adopt trade compliance programs that minimize legal risks while promoting growth. It’s about more than just checking boxes; it’s about strategic import and export decisions in real-time." Don’t Navigate These Shifting Currents Alone.   With new tariffs being announced and judicial rulings changing the game, your business needs more than just legal advice—it needs a strategic partner. Contact Schulz Trade Law to schedule a consultation and ensure your compliance program is ready for the challenges of 2026. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

The Future of Tariffs:  Navigating the Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling and What It Means for Your Business Unpacking the legal shift in trade policy, the 15% workaround, and the fight for $175 billion in tariff refunds. In a landmark decision that has sent shockwaves through the global trade community, the Supreme Court recently ruled 6-3 that certain tariffs implemented by the executive branch were illegal. The court’s message was clear: the power to levy tariffs belongs to Congress, not the President. This ruling has left $175 billion in collected revenue hanging in the balance and sparked a new executive order aimed at a 15% tariff "workaround." To help make sense of this legal whirlwind, trade law expert Michelle Schulz  of Schulz Trade Law joined WLW Radio’s Scott Sloan to discuss the implications for businesses, consumers, and the future of international trade. Feb 23, 2026 WLW Radio Cincinnati Host: Scott Sloan The Power Shift: Why the Supreme Court Sided with Congress The core of the Supreme Court's ruling rests on the separation of powers. For decades, the executive branch has utilized specific trade laws—such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—to implement tariffs. However, the court has now drawn a hard line, stating that unilateral implementation overstepped constitutional boundaries. "This is not your job. This is a job of Congress," Michelle explains, summarizing the court's definitive stance. "The power to tax and the power to set tariffs is a Congressional power, and the President can't just take it under the guise of an emergency." The $175 Billion Question: Will Companies Get Their Money Back? With the Supreme Court declaring the IEEPA tariffs illegal, the immediate question for many businesses is: What happens to the money we already paid?  Currently, the U.S. Treasury is sitting on approximately $175 billion in revenue collected under the now-invalidated rules. "It’s not an automatic refund," Michelle warns. "Companies have to be proactive. If you haven't filed a protest or a claim, the government isn't just going to mail you a check. You have to go after it legally." The 15% Workaround and the Impact on Your Wallet The legal victory for opponents of the tariffs was short-lived. In response to the ruling, the administration pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act, implementing a 15% "surcharge" as a workaround. This ensures that trade tensions—and the resulting costs passed on to consumers—remain high. "We’re in a game of legal Whac-A-Mole," says Michelle. "One door closes and the administration opens another. For the business owner, it means the 15% is still there, just under a different name, and you have to adjust your pricing all over again." Take Action: Is Your Business Owed a Refund? The Supreme Court ruling has opened a narrow window for companies to seek redress for illegally collected tariffs. Don't leave your hard-earned capital in the hands of the Treasury. If your business has been impacted by recent tariff hikes, you need expert guidance to determine your eligibility for a refund and to navigate the new 15% executive order. Contact Schulz Trade Law today to protect your bottom line. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

The SCOTUS Ruling: A Shift in the Tariff Landscape and What Lies Ahead Understanding the Rejection of Emergency Powers and the President’s Next Move In a landmark decision that sent ripples through Wall Street, the Supreme Court has officially struck down the use of emergency powers to impose global tariffs. While the markets responded with a 200-point surge in the Dow , the legal battle over international trade is far from finished. Feb 20, 2026 Fox 5 New York Host: Antwan Lewis Following the ruling, the administration has already signaled its intent to bypass the court’s decision by utilizing alternative federal statutes. Here is a breakdown of the ruling and the new "avenues" currently being explored. The Constitutional Conflict: Congress vs. The President The Supreme Court ruled that the administration violated federal law by claiming emergency powers under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)  to bypass Congress. The justices emphasized that the Constitution clearly grants the power to impose taxes and tariffs to Congress, not the executive branch. "The justices in the majority found that the Constitution very clearly gives Congress the power to impose taxes."  — Antwan Lewis Alternative Avenues: Section 232 and Section 301 Despite the ruling, the administration argues that other statutes—specifically Section 232  and Section 301 —provide the necessary authority to keep tariffs in place or even expand them. Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962):  Used to justify tariffs based on national security concerns, potentially allowing for an across-the-board 10% tariff on goods. Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974):  Allows for investigations into "unfair trade practices," which can lead to targeted tariffs after a formal request and investigation. Market Reaction and Global Implications While traders initially cheered the SCOTUS decision, the promise of new tariffs has introduced a fresh layer of uncertainty for US trade partners and manufacturers. The administration remains firm that these actions are necessary to address trade imbalances and international drug trafficking, regardless of the court's recent holding. "The decision might not substantially constrain a president's ability to order tariffs going forward... numerous other federal statutes authorize the president to impose tariffs."  — Donald Trump The Presidential Trade Arsenal: A Comparative Look As the administration moves away from the now-invalidated IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act), they are turning to more structured—but still potent—statutory "hammers." Authority Legal Trigger Implementation Speed Duration & Limits Section 122 "Large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits. Immediate.  No investigation required. Capped at 15%  for 150 days  (unless extended by Congress). Section 232 Imports that "threaten to impair" national security . Slow.  Requires 270-day Commerce Dept. investigation. No limit  on tariff rate or duration once implemented. Section 301 "Unjustifiable or unreasonable" unfair trade practices . Slow.  Requires 12–18 month USTR investigation. No limit  on tariff rate; must be reviewed every 4 years. Navigate the Evolving Trade Climate with Schulz Trade Law The rules of the game are changing rapidly. Whether you are seeking a refund from the struck-down IEEPA tariffs or preparing for upcoming Section 301 investigations, you need a legal partner who understands the nuance of executive authority. Is your supply chain protected against the next wave of tariffs?   Contact Schulz Trade Law  today for a compliance audit and strategic consultation Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

The SCOTUS Tariff Ruling: Why the Battle for Free Trade is Just Beginning How the Administration is Pivoting to New Statutes After a Major Legal Defeat The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a significant blow to executive overreach in international trade. By striking down global tariffs imposed under emergency powers, the Court has reasserted that the power to tax remains with Congress . However, as the Dow surges 200 points in response to the news, a new era of trade uncertainty is already unfolding. International trade attorney Michelle Schulz joined KNX Radio and Fox 5 New York to explain why importers should temper their celebrations with strategic preparation. Feb 20, 2026 KNX Radio Los Angeles The Constitutional Rejection of IEEPA The nation’s highest court ruled that the administration broke federal laws by claiming emergency powers under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) . The ruling clarified that the President cannot unilaterally levy reciprocal taxes on nearly every trading partner without Congressional approval. "The justices in the majority found that the Constitution very clearly gives Congress the power to impose taxes."  — Antwan Lewis, Reporting on the SCOTUS Decision The New Arsenal: Section 232 and Section 301 Despite the ruling, the administration is vowing to use "other avenues" to keep tariffs in place. This includes a pivot to alternative federal statutes that do not require an emergency declaration but still allow for significant trade barriers: Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962):  Used to justify an across-the-board 10% tariff on goods based on national security. Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974):  Allows for investigations into "unfair trade practices," which could lead to additional, targeted tariffs. "The President can legally impose tariffs under different laws even if businesses would rather not see that happen."  — Michelle Schulz Importer Frustration and the "Complex" Path to Refunds While the SCOTUS decision offers hope for reclaiming past payments, Michelle Schulz warns that the refund process for IEEPA-related tariffs will be "complex and nuanced". Many importers remain frustrated, as they continue to face penalties for non-payment while navigating a system that may soon be hit with a fresh wave of secondary tariffs. "There may be refunds available on these IEEPA tariffs, but importers should keep in mind that that could take a very long time."  — Michelle Schulz Is Your Business Prepared for the Next Wave? The "emergency" may be over, but the era of high tariffs is simply changing shape. Whether you are seeking a refund for previous IEEPA payments or need to prepare for upcoming Section 301 investigations, expert legal counsel is essential. Schulz Trade Law  is currently assisting clients in navigating these new statutory hurdles. Contact us today. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

New Tariffs and Refund Chaos: What Businesses Need to Know After the Supreme Court Ruling Navigating the shift from invalidated duties to Section 122 enforcement and the long road to recovery. Overview: The trade landscape shifted dramatically this morning following a landmark Supreme Court decision that invalidated a significant round of tariffs. While many U.S. businesses are celebrating the prospect of recovering billions in duties, the celebration may be short-lived. The administration has already signaled a pivot to new trade enforcement measures, and the path to securing refunds promises to be a complex, uphill battle. Feb 20, 2026 Fox 26 / KRIV TV Houston Host: Tom Zizka Here is a breakdown of what this ruling means for your bottom line and how the government plans to maintain its tariff strategy. The Multi-Billion Dollar Refund Reality The Supreme Court’s decision has invalidated tariffs that accounted for anywhere from $130 billion to $200 billion in collected revenue. While these specific tariffs "go away" as of today, businesses should not expect a windfall overnight. The process for claiming these refunds has been on hold pending this decision, and the sheer volume of anticipated claims is expected to create a massive administrative backlog. For businesses in high-volume sectors like Houston’s oil and gas industry, the wait for capital to return to their accounts could be extensive. The Section 122 "Backup Plan" The administration was prepared for this ruling. Almost immediately following the decision, the President responded by invoking new tariffs under different sections of trade law— specifically Section 122 . This provision serves as a strategic bridge. It allows the administration to keep tariffs in place for 150 days (roughly 5 months). This window provides the government enough time to conduct necessary investigations and transition the tariffs into other long-term provisions of the trade code. Essentially, while the legal justification has changed, the financial burden on importers remains largely the same. Anticipating a Chaotic Recovery Process Trade experts warn that the transition between tariff regimes will be far from seamless. As the new executive order takes effect within three days, businesses relying on foreign goods will find themselves writing checks for new tariffs even as they struggle to claw back the old ones. Michelle Schulz of Schulz Trade Law emphasizes that the complexity of the refund process cannot be understated. Drawing on her experience with complex trade mechanisms, she notes: "My experience with refunds, for example in duty drawback which is often used in oil and gas in Houston, is that it can take months if not years to get your refund. There will be so many refund requests; I anticipate it's going to be a bit chaotic." Furthermore, Schulz warns that while Section 122 is a temporary measure, the legal framework allows for a much longer game: "This is temporary, but there are other much longer-term provisions under which [the President] can continue tariffs. This could drag out for a very long time." Protect Your Interests Today With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake and a "chaotic" refund process on the horizon, businesses cannot afford to take a passive approach. Navigating the intersection of Section 122 investigations and refund claims requires aggressive legal oversight. Contact Schulz Trade Law today to ensure your claims are filed correctly and your business is prepared for the next round of trade enforcement. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Billions in Potential Tariff Refunds Following Landmark SCOTUS Ruling DALLAS, TX  — Following a monumental Supreme Court decision that has sent shockwaves through the global trade community, Michelle Schulz , founder of Schulz Trade Law, appeared on Fox 4 to provide critical guidance for U.S. importers. Feb 20, 2026 KDFW-TV/Fox 4 Dallas-Fort Worth Host: Shaun Rabb The ruling, which voided significant portions of the administration’s sweeping tariff policies, has opened the door to potential refunds of  $133 billion to $175 billion . However, as Schulz warned viewers, the road to recovery is paved with regulatory hurdles. "Dot Your I’s and Cross Your T’s" During the segment, Schulz emphasized that the federal government will not simply issue checks to every business that paid the now-voided duties. Instead, the burden of proof rests on the companies to navigate a complex, technical protest process. "They need to make sure they understand import compliance and that they understand how their duties are calculated,"  Schulz told Fox 4. "It's very important to dot your i's and cross your t's in this situation where you're asking for money back." Why Precision is Non-Negotiable For many businesses, these tariffs—often ranging from 10% to 25%—have significantly impacted bottom lines and consumer prices. Reclaiming that capital requires a three-pronged approach: Rigorous Audit:  Verifying every HTS code and duty calculation. Compliance Verification:  Ensuring past import records meet federal standards to prevent secondary audits. Strategic Filing:  Navigating the specialized Court of International Trade to ensure claims are prioritized. Is Your Business Eligible for a Refund? Don't let administrative complexity prevent your company from recovering unlawfully collected duties. The window to file protests is limited. Contact Schulz Trade Law today  for a comprehensive evaluation of your tariff exposure and recovery options. Trade on, but trade informed! Subscribe  to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.

Navigating the Post-Trump Tariff Refund Landscape: Expert Advice from Michelle Schulz Dallas Trade Law Expert Explains How Companies Can Secure Refunds on Unconstitutional Duties Overview:   The international trade world recently experienced a seismic shift. With the Supreme Court deeming significant portions of the Trump administration’s tariff policies void, thousands of U.S. companies may now be eligible for substantial refunds. However, reclaiming those tariff refunds isn't as simple as sending an invoice to the government. Feb 20, 2026 Your Money Now Compass Networks Host: Dan Loney In a recent interview on Your Money Now , Michelle Schulz , founder of Schulz Trade Law  and a leading expert in international trade litigation, laid out the roadmap for businesses looking to recover their duty payments. The Path to Recovery: Precision and Compliance As Schulz points out, the burden of proof rests entirely on the importer. When the stakes involve federal refunds, the government’s scrutiny is at an all-time high. "It's very important to dot your i's and cross your t's in this situation where you're asking for money back," Schulz noted. To successfully navigate this process, Schulz identifies two critical pillars for any recovery strategy: Deep-Dive Import Compliance:  Before filing a claim, companies must ensure their entire import history is beyond reproach. Any existing compliance gaps could not only jeopardize a refund but potentially trigger an unwanted audit. Granular Duty Calculation:  Understanding exactly how your duties were calculated—and where the specific voided policies applied—is essential. Accuracy in these technical calculations is the difference between a successful claim and a rejected one. Don't Leave Money on the Table The complexity of trade law means that many companies may not even realize the full extent of the refunds they are owed. The transition from policy to litigation to actual recovery requires a meticulous, legally-sound approach. Take Action: Secure Your Trade Audit Today Is your business positioned to recover its miscalculated duties? Don't let administrative complexity stand between your company and its rightful capital. Contact Schulz Trade Law  to schedule a comprehensive tariff recovery consultation. Our team of experts will help you audit your compliance, recalculate your duties, and ensure every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed. Schedule your consultation and protect your bottom line.