Early into his second presidency, Donald Trump invoked his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose a 10% tariff on all countries. Throughout spring 2025, U.S. businesses experienced whiplash with back-and-forth tariff threats and responding retaliation. Additionally, the President’s actions have been challenged via the court system. Here’s an update on what importers need to know.
Tariffs reach SCOTUS
On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court partially resolved the legal challenge to the Trump administration’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, striking down the executive orders that had imposed a 10% tariff on imports from nearly all countries, as well as related country‑specific measures (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump; consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections).
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Constitution assigns the power to impose “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” to Congress, and that statutes delegating such authority must do so clearly. Although IEEPA permits the president to “regulate … importation” during a declared national emergency, the Court concluded that this language falls short of authorizing tariffs or duties. The Court found it significant that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and that, in nearly five decades since its enactment, no prior president had interpreted the statute to confer such power.
The Court affirmed the judgment invalidating the IEEPA tariffs and made clear that IEEPA is not a tariff statute. As a result, the challenged tariffs can no longer be enforced going forward.
Importantly, however, the Supreme Court did not decide whether importers are entitled to refunds of duties already paid under the invalidated tariffs. The Court expressly left questions of retroactive relief, refunds, and the appropriate administrative or judicial mechanisms for recovery, unresolved setting the stage for continued litigation and uncertainty for importers seeking repayment.
Practical steps for importers
Following the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the IEEPA tariffs, the tariffs may no longer be enforced prospectively. However, the Court did not decide whether importers are entitled to refunds of duties already paid. As a result, significant uncertainty remains regarding retroactive relief, and importers should take steps to preserve potential refund claims.
As a threshold matter, only the importer of record may seek a refund of duties, which can create complications where informal entries were filed through intermediaries such as express consignment operators or other third parties.
Although there is currently no automatic refund process, importers may take the following steps to preserve their rights while refund issues are resolved through administrative action or further litigation:
- Request extensions of liquidation for unliquidated entries and confirm with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that any requested extensions have been granted;
- File administrative protests within 180 days of liquidation for affected entries;
- Request that CBP stay action on filed protests pending further guidance or resolution of refund issues; and
- File suit at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) if a protest is denied, to prevent liquidation from becoming final.
Importers should begin by reviewing their customs data to identify entries on which IEEPA tariffs were paid. This information can be obtained through CBP’S Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal.
Tracking liquidation dates remains critical. Liquidation is the process by which CBP finalizes the determination of duties, taxes, and fees owed on an entry. CBP generally must liquidate an entry within one year of entry, with liquidation often occurring approximately 314 days after entry. An importer must file an administrative protest within 180 days of liquidation to preserve its rights. Once liquidation becomes final following expiration of the protest period, CBP is likely to argue that no refund is available, regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
For unliquidated entries, importers may request extensions of liquidation, which CBP may grant for up to three years. However, applicable regulations provide that liquidation is not automatically suspended simply because related litigation or refund issues remain pending (19 C.F.R. § 159.51). Where liquidation occurs before refund questions are resolved, importers should strongly consider filing a timely protest to preserve their claims.
Protests are generally filed on CBP Form 19 and may challenge CBP decisions involving the rate or amount of duties assessed. Within the protest, importers may request that CBP stay its decision while refund entitlement issues continue to be addressed. If a protest is denied, filing suit at the CIT may be necessary to prevent liquidation from becoming final and to preserve any potential recovery.
Support for international trade and tariff issues
In light of all of the above, due to the various legal uncertainties, it is important to note that the courts could decide to not apply retroactive relief for the tariffs meaning that the tariffs will not be refunded even if deemed unconstitutional. Additionally, the courts could narrow the retroactive relief to only the parties to the lawsuit. This may result in a limited (or no) refunds available to non-parties.
Have questions? Our International Business and Trade Law attorneys are ready to counsel our clients and work with them through these challenging times and questions about Trump tariffs. We’ll continue to monitor any decisions from SCOTUS and what they mean for your business.
