The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to invalidate President Donald Trump’s broad tariff policy has left importers and market participants in a state of uncertainty. While the ruling removed the tariffs, it did not clarify whether companies will recover previously paid duties, fueling legal and financial ambiguity for affected firms.
Following the Supreme Court’s judgment, the path forward for companies seeking repayments for tariffs already paid remains unresolved. The court’s opinion did not address the key question of refunds, leaving businesses to turn to the judicial system for redress. President Trump, when asked about honoring refund requests, stated that the matter may now be tied up in litigation for the next two years rather than offering direct confirmation of repayment.
Legal experts quickly weighed in on the situation. Erik Smithweiss of GDLSK noted that forcing American businesses to engage in lengthy litigation to recover unlawfully collected tariffs is troubling, emphasizing the situation is “unfortunate” for taxpayers.
Legal action at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) appears to be the only avenue for companies as the refund dispute heads toward the lower courts. The CIT had already ruled against the legality of Trump’s blanket tariffs last year—a stance now upheld by the Supreme Court.
Analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model outlined significant financial implications, estimating that up to $175 billion in refunds could be at stake if the tariffs are rescinded, without alternate revenue sources for the government replacing them.
In response to the Supreme Court decision, President Trump moved quickly to sign an executive order imposing a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which he then increased to 15%. These new tariffs, announced over the weekend, represent the maximum permitted by the statute and apply on top of existing tariffs.
Experts advising corporate clients expressed that obtaining refunds would be a complex and drawn-out process. Ted Murphy of Sidley Austin cautioned that the route to repayment would likely not be easy, with official guidance needed from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which remains delayed amid a government shutdown.
Lee Smith of Baker Donelson stated that importers would need to take initiative through court action to secure refunds, predicting that the CIT would ultimately decide the outcome.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, importers must continue paying tariffs for now. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has not yet updated its systems to remove the previously imposed duties, requiring importers to continue reporting IEEPA tariff codes for goods to be cleared. Customs officials have not yet communicated when tariff collection will cease.
The repercussions of the new 15% tariff order are also being evaluated against existing trade agreements. Some goods—such as specific agricultural and aerospace products—are exempt from the new levy.
While Trump signaled that certain trade deals will remain valid, legal specialists noted that the new tariff imposition could diminish the benefits of recently negotiated agreements and raise questions about compliance going forward. Section 122 tariffs can only be applied for 150 days unless Congress extends them, and further legal review is anticipated due to the unprecedented use of this statute.
Notably, the European Commission has called on the United States to adhere to the terms of the EU-U.S. trade agreement negotiated in 2025. The Commission has formally requested that Washington clarify its intentions regarding trade provisions in light of the court’s decision and the new tariff regime. It stressed that EU goods must not face duties exceeding those agreed, underlining that uncertainty over tariffs undermines the global business environment and investment flows.
