After the Supreme Court invalidates Trump emergency tariffs, businesses await answers on whether the federal government will return billions collected under the unlawful trade policy.
 |
Donald Trump speaks during a press conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 20, 2026. Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images |
The Supreme Court invalidates Trump emergency tariffs, delivering what many legal scholars describe as a sweeping affirmation of constitutional limits on executive power. Yet while the ruling marks a landmark victory for the rule of law, it leaves unresolved a staggering economic question: What happens to the estimated $175 billion that the federal government collected from American importers under a policy now deemed unlawful?
For thousands of businesses — from multinational corporations to family-run import firms — the answer could determine their financial outlook for years to come. Although there is a clear administrative path for refunding the improperly collected duties, early signals from the administration suggest that repayment may not be swift, automatic or uncontested.
The stakes are enormous. If the government ultimately returns the money in full, it could amount to the largest mandated tax refund in US history. If repayment stalls in litigation or bureaucratic delays, the financial strain will continue for hundreds of thousands of companies already navigating global supply chain volatility and higher trade costs.
When the Supreme Court invalidates Trump emergency tariffs, it does so on narrow statutory grounds with broad constitutional implications. The justices ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize a president to impose tariffs. While IEEPA grants significant authority during national emergencies, the majority found that it does not extend to levying import duties — a power traditionally delegated by Congress under specific trade statutes.
As a result, the president’s emergency-based tariffs enacted since early 2025 were deemed unlawful.
Shortly after the ruling, President Donald Trump issued an executive order terminating all tariffs that had been imposed under IEEPA authority. Collections ceased almost immediately. However, the administration simultaneously announced plans to implement replacement tariffs under other statutory provisions, setting the stage for additional legal scrutiny and possible new litigation.
While the legality of the new tariffs will likely be tested in court, the more pressing issue concerns the billions already collected.
According to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), collections under the IEEPA-based tariff regime totaled $133.5 billion as of mid-December 2025. Economists at the University of Pennsylvania estimate that the final tally has climbed to approximately $175 billion.
That figure represents direct payments made by US importers — companies that legally bear the responsibility for paying tariffs when goods enter the country. These importers range from global shipping giants to small businesses importing consumer goods, industrial inputs, and specialized equipment.
Because the Supreme Court invalidates Trump emergency tariffs outright, those collections now rest on legally void ground. The majority opinion did not explicitly address refunds. However, longstanding trade law practice provides a clear principle: when tariffs are invalidated, the government must return the funds, typically with interest.
There is a well-established mechanism for processing tariff refunds. CBP routinely handles duty drawback claims, protests, and retroactive refunds when trade programs lapse and are later reinstated. Import entries are carefully itemized, coded and recorded electronically.
In this case, IEEPA tariffs were assigned specific codes, making them easily identifiable within CBP’s systems. In theory, the administration could initiate blanket administrative refunds through existing processes. For most importers, calculations would be straightforward.
Importantly, administration officials had previously acknowledged this possibility. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly stated in September that refunds would be required if the courts ultimately ruled against the government. In court filings, the administration indicated that plaintiffs would receive repayment following a final, unappealable decision.
Now that the Supreme Court invalidates Trump emergency tariffs, that final decision has arrived.
Yet the administration’s tone appears to have shifted.
Recent statements from both President Trump and Treasury officials suggest that refunds may not be automatic. There are indications that the administration could contest aspects of repayment or stretch the process over years.
The Department of Justice has not provided detailed public guidance, and CBP has yet to issue formal refund procedures for affected importers.
As a result, legal action is accelerating.
Nearly 2,000 importers, including FedEx, have filed lawsuits in the US Court of International Trade (CIT), the specialized federal court that oversees customs disputes. Last month, the CIT affirmed that it possesses authority to mandate refunds and indicated it would hold the government to prior representations that it would not oppose such relief.
Trade attorneys expect thousands more lawsuits in the coming weeks.
Although approximately 600,000 US importers may be entitled to refunds, not all have the resources to pursue litigation.
Large corporations typically maintain in-house legal teams and longstanding relationships with customs attorneys. They are positioned to navigate administrative appeals or extended court battles. Smaller importers, however, may lack both the knowledge and financial capacity to file suit.
Class-action litigation could provide a path for some, but certification is not guaranteed. Even successful plaintiffs must still navigate administrative procedures within CBP.
Legal experts estimate that even under an efficient and cooperative process, importers may wait 12 to 18 months before receiving refunds.
In the meantime, many smaller businesses remain financially exposed. For some, the tariffs represented a significant percentage of annual operating costs. Unlike larger firms, they may not have successfully passed those costs along to customers.
A prolonged refund fight effectively creates a liquidity crunch for businesses that can least afford it.
The Supreme Court invalidates Trump emergency tariffs, but how refunds ripple through the economy remains uncertain.
Legally, only the importer of record has standing to claim repayment. Yet tariffs are frequently passed down the supply chain. Wholesalers may have charged retailers higher prices, who in turn raised prices for consumers. In other cases, businesses absorbed the costs internally, compressing margins.
If refunds are eventually distributed, there is no guarantee that prices will fall. Businesses are generally reluctant to lower prices once established, particularly if replacement tariffs remain in place under alternative statutory authority.
Some companies may use refunds to repair balance sheets, pay down debt, or rebuild inventory rather than reduce consumer prices. Others may have gone bankrupt and will never claim their share.
In that sense, the refund process could become a real-time economic experiment in trade pass-through effects and corporate pricing behavior.
Congressional action on the table
If the administration resists a streamlined refund process, Congress may intervene.
Democratic lawmakers recently introduced legislation mandating automatic refunds with interest. The proposal mirrors prior congressional actions involving the Generalized System of Preferences, where retroactive renewals required large-scale duty repayments.
A veto-proof majority appears unlikely in the current political climate. However, the issue carries electoral implications. Democrats are already signaling plans to highlight the administration’s tariff policy in upcoming midterm campaigns.
For Republicans, the political calculus may be complex. Supporting automatic refunds could shield small businesses from financial strain, but it may also reinforce criticism of the administration’s trade strategy.
Beyond economics, the decision carries constitutional weight. By ruling that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, the Supreme Court reaffirmed congressional primacy over taxation and trade powers.
Presidents retain significant trade authority under statutes such as Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 or Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. But the Court’s ruling draws a clear boundary: emergency powers cannot be stretched to create entirely new tariff regimes without explicit congressional authorization.
The case could shape executive authority debates for decades.
Politically, the administration faces a dilemma. Fighting refunds risks alienating small businesses and prolonging negative headlines. Issuing swift repayments, however, underscores that the policy was unlawful from inception.
In practical terms, the immediate next step lies with the Court of International Trade. If the CIT issues refund mandates and the government complies, a structured administrative process could begin within months.
If appeals follow, litigation could drag on for years.
Meanwhile, importers await clarity. Many have meticulously documented IEEPA-related payments in anticipation of potential reimbursement. Trade attorneys report a surge in client inquiries since the ruling.
For businesses already strained by supply chain disruptions and global uncertainty, the refund question is not abstract. It is a balance sheet issue, a payroll issue, and in some cases, a survival issue.
When the Supreme Court invalidates Trump emergency tariffs, it closes one chapter of aggressive executive trade policy. But it opens another — one centered on restitution, administrative competence, and economic fairness.
Whether the federal government chooses a clean, automatic refund process or a prolonged legal battle will send a powerful signal about its commitment to the rule of law and to the businesses that bore the costs.
The decision may have been clear. The consequences are anything but.
