Supreme Court Voids IEEPA Tariffs: $175B Refund Battle Looms for Importers

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a seismic blow to executive trade authority, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) cannot be used as a mechanism for imposing tariffs. In a 6-3 decision led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court clarified that while IEEPA allows the President to 'regulate' importation during national emergencies, this power does not extend to taxation. The majority opinion emphasized that the power to levy duties is a core constitutional function of Congress, and any delegation of that power must be explicit, using terms like 'duty' or 'surcharge' rather than the broader 'regulate.' This decision effectively renders the 'reciprocal' and 'drug-trafficking' tariffs imposed since early 2025 unlawful from their inception.

For the global supply chain and logistics sector, the immediate consequence is a state of profound administrative and financial uncertainty. The tariffs in question targeted a wide array of goods, including significant imports from Canada, Mexico, and China, as well as broader reciprocal duties applied to most trading partners. While the Court was clear on the illegality of the tariffs, it remained notably silent on the mechanism for restitution. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing in dissent, warned that the resulting refund process is likely to be a 'mess,' a sentiment echoed by trade experts who now face the daunting task of unwinding over a year of duty collections. Estimates suggest the federal government’s refund exposure exceeds $175 billion, a figure that could significantly impact federal budget projections.

“

Estimates suggest the federal government’s refund exposure exceeds $175 billion, a figure that could significantly impact federal budget projections.

Importers of record are the primary beneficiaries of this ruling, but the path to recovery is fraught with technical hurdles. The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) is expected to be the primary venue for implementing the Supreme Court’s decision, likely directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to establish a formal refund procedure. However, the Trump administration has already signaled its intent to litigate the refund issue, potentially arguing against retroactive payments despite previous government filings suggesting they would comply with a SCOTUS ruling. This creates a high-stakes waiting game for logistics managers who must now meticulously audit their import records.

Crucially, the ruling does not touch the legal foundations of Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum or Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods. These remain in place, as they are authorized under different statutes with more explicit delegations of taxing power. However, the IEEPA ruling may chill future attempts by any administration to use emergency powers as a catch-all for trade protectionism. It reasserts a more traditional, constrained view of executive power in the realm of international commerce, forcing a return to more established—and often slower—legislative or specific statutory routes for tariff implementation.

As the industry moves forward, the focus shifts to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the liquidation status of entries. Importers who have already seen their entries 'liquidate'—a final CBP determination of duties—may face a more difficult legal climb than those with unliquidated entries. Supply chain entities that absorbed these costs indirectly, such as wholesalers or retailers who purchased from an importer of record, face an even more complex recovery path. These companies must now review purchase agreements to determine if they have contractual rights to a portion of any refunds secured by their suppliers. The coming months will likely see a surge in specialized legal activity as the CIT and CBP attempt to build a framework for what could be the largest tariff refund event in American history.