A United States Supreme Court ruling striking down tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not address questions about refunds, an issue that one dissenting justice said could be a “mess.”
President Trump, in a press conference on Friday afternoon, responded to the ruling by imposing what he said is an immediate 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. By statute, Section 122 tariffs can be imposed only for 150 days. He followed up that announcement Saturday with a pledge to raise the temporary Section 122 tariff to 15%. Trump also said he is initiating investigations to determine country-specific tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. He asserted that current tariffs subject to Section 301 (on Chinese goods) and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (on specific sectors such as steel and aluminum) remain in force. Trump on Sat
Business groups are supporting the Supreme Court ruling. Still, as no process has been established by the court ruling, the question of refunds on the IEEPA tariffs could get tossed to the United States Court of International Trade, but that is not certain, according to initial reports.
Trump, in April of 2025, imposed sweeping so-called reciprocal tariffs on goods from dozens of countries based on what the administration claimed were emergency declarations related to illegal drug (Fentanyl) smuggling and alleged trade imbalances. The U.S. Court of International Trade later ruled that the U.S. Congress has exclusive constitutional authority for such tariffs, and the Trump administration took an appeal of that ruling to the Supreme Court.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in dissenting from the Supreme Court majority decision, opined that the ruling does not necessarily prevent the president from imposing similar tariffs under another authority, which the Trump administration often has said it might do.
Kavanaugh commented:
The court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict presidential tariff authority going forward. But the court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term. One issue will be refunds. Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury. The court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.
In commentary on the Supreme Court ruling, the Brookings Institution, a non-partisan Washington, D.C., think tank, noted that if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court rulings against the administration’s tariffs imposed under IEEPA, President Trump likely has authority under other trade laws essentially to reimpose duties going forward, although he could face procedural barriers. The immediate, major consequence, Brookings pointed out, is that the government would have to rebate roughly $130 billion in tariff duties by year’s end.
White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett has publicly stated that the Trump administration has developed alternative plans to reinstate tariffs under other trade authority in the event of a ruling such as that just handed down by the Supreme Court.
In a response to the Supreme Court ruling, National Retail Federation’s David French, executive vice president of government relations, said, “The Supreme Court’s announcement today regarding tariffs provides much-needed certainty for U.S. businesses and manufacturers, enabling global supply chains to operate without ambiguity. Clear and consistent trade policy is essential for economic growth, creating jobs and opportunities for American families. We urge the lower court to ensure a seamless process to refund the tariffs to U.S. importers. The refunds will serve as an economic boost and allow companies to reinvest in their operations, their employees and their customers.”
For its part, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a statement on the Supreme Court ruling from Neil Bradley, its executive vice president and chief policy officer: “The Supreme Court’s decision is welcome news for businesses and consumers. Over the past year, the chamber has been working with small and mid-size businesses around the country that have seen significant cost increases and supply chain disruptions as a result of these tariffs. Swift refunds of the impermissible tariffs will be meaningful for the more than 200,000 small business importers in this country and will help support stronger economic growth this year. We encourage the administration to use this opportunity to reset overall tariff policy in a manner that will lead to greater economic growth, larger wage gains for workers and lower costs for families.”
Erik Fabian, co-founder of Sourhouse, a producer of home baking products, applauded the Supreme Court ruling while noting how tariffs impacted his company’s operations the past year. “For the past year, tariffs forced us to delay a major product launch, put hiring on hold and spend money we didn’t have on costs we couldn’t predict,” Fabian said. “Today’s Supreme Court ruling gives us hope that small businesses can get back to building and serving customers without trade policy constantly shifting under our feet. We look forward to refunds for the tariffs we’ve paid, and we urge Congress to make sure the Trump administration can’t simply reimpose them through other means.”
