What to expect as fight for billions begins

U.S. importers will face multiple hurdles trying to recover billions of dollars in tariff costs after the Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs are illegal.

Companies large and small may be eligible for refund payments that could total hundreds of billions of dollars, but trade lawyers have warned that tariff refunds could be denied or delayed depending on what U.S. courts decide and how the legal system and U.S. Customs and Border Protection issue eligible payments.

US government records record tariff revenue; Tariff collections rose to $30 billion in January, bringing the year-to-date total to $124 billion. This is up 304% from the same period in 2025.

The Supreme Court decision could mean refunds of $175 billion, according to estimates, but the decision was silent on whether tariffs paid under the higher rates should be refunded.

In his opposition majority Supreme Court decision Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote on Friday: “The Court’s decision is unlikely to substantially curtail Presidential tariff authority going forward. But the Court’s decision is likely to have other serious practical consequences in the near term. One issue will be refunds. Billions of dollars in refunds would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury. The Court today says nothing about whether the Government should begin refunding the billions of dollars it has collected from importers and, if so, how. But that process is likely a ‘mess,'” he acknowledged at oral argument. like.”

Trump wrote a social media post He said on January 12 that it would “take many years to figure out what number we are talking about or even who to pay, when and where.” “It would be a complete mess and it would be nearly impossible for our Country to pay,” he added.

At a White House news conference Friday afternoon, Trump reacted angrily to the Supreme Court decision and said he would pay damages: “I think we’re going to have to be sued for the next two years. … We’re going to be in court for the next five years.”

Trump also said he would sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974; “It is well above our normal tariffs that are already imposed. We are also initiating Article 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trade practices of other countries and companies.” Trump added, referring to another section of the 1974 law.

Lori Mullins, chief operating officer of Rogers & Brown Custom Brokers, said her initial opinion of the Supreme Court decision was that it did not provide or guarantee refunds. “They sent it back to the lower courts to decide whether refunds should be given. A lot of people believe that refunds won’t be given retroactively without knowing for sure,” he said. For importers hoping for refunds, he said, “the answer is yes, we have a decision but no decision on whether there will be any refunds. This will be dealt with by a lower court at a later date/time.”

“Also note that many countries have signed written agreements with specific tariff rates, such as the agreement with the UK for a flat tariff of 15%. This does not affect agreements that have already been signed, so we are not sure at this time how these country-specific agreements will be affected,” Mullins said. he added.

In the run-up to the decision, importers and customs experts have rejected claims that refunds are a “complicated” process, saying that since the tariffs paid are detailed, the process of getting the money refunded should be simple.

The International Commercial Court is generally responsible for extradition processes. Trade lawyers expect the case to be sent back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; The court will also likely send the case to the CIT to decide how the refunds will be handled.

Timothy Keeler, a partner at Mayer Brown and co-chair of its international trade practice and former chief of staff to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, believes the refunds will eventually come from companies. “There will be refunds,” he said. “It’s unclear what the process for getting refunds will look like. It’s unclear if companies will have to go to court and file lawsuits to get refunds, or if this will end up as an administrative process,” he said, run by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

For starters, the International Trade Court and the plaintiffs, who filed suit against the tariffs in coordination with the U.S. government, will need some time to figure out how to manage any refunds. The Department of Justice and plaintiffs in the tariff cases have previously asked the CIT to appoint a steering committee to manage the more than 1,000 refund-related cases filed to date. It is common for a steering committee to be established to manage the tariff reimbursement process.

Even if the courts ultimately rule that refunds are necessary, importers betting on cash flow from tariff refunds should be aware that there is no set timeline and any rush for refunds could strain the system and possibly lead to long delays.

Joyce Adetutu, an international trade lawyer at Vinson & Elkins, said her firm has told clients it would be difficult to provide large-scale refunds “at the push of a button.”

“I don’t think that’s going to be the scenario here,” Adetutu said. “I think what’s more likely is that CIT and the government, Customs, will work together to allow those who maintain their refund claims to claim that refund, and those who don’t protest will lose out on any refunds,” he added.

“We believe it could take months, if not years, for a determination by the CIT,” said Greg Tompsett, vice president of U.S. customs brokerage for logistics company Kuehne + Nagel. “The extended period may also result in additional litigation, which could lead to the case going to the Supreme Court. The good news is that we have some certainty about the decision. “The bad news is that there is no immediate action by any importer to demand a refund or get that money back,” he said.

Companies will not only seek billions of dollars in tariff rebates, but also billions of dollars tied up in bonds and guarantees. Tariffs not only lead to additional import taxes, but they also increase the cost of products, creating the need for importers to increase the value of customs bonds that the government requires them to hold.

International trade experts told CNBC that importers now face bond amounts ranging from $50,000, the minimum bond amount under regulation, to $450 million, with some tariffs increasing by 10 percent to 25 percent or more for certain products. The rise in bond values ​​has resulted in some companies having to put up additional money in the form of collateral to ensure they can pay the tariffs.

The increase in tariffs and the resulting need for bonds and collateral has led to a historic number of “bond shortages.” CBP told CNBC it had identified “deficiencies” in more than 24,000 customs bonds worth about $3.6 billion. That’s double the level in 2019, when shortages first increased due to Trump’s first-term tariffs imposed under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act.

Importers told CNBC that, in theory, they should be able to get their refunds quickly because tariffs are detailed, as are customs bonds and warrants. But commercial lawyers also say it may be difficult for companies to quickly recover excess bond or security payments because insurers will want to make sure they don’t incur any tariff payments.

Vincent Moy, international surety leader at Marsh Risk, recently told CNBC that companies should expect some delay in receiving these bond funds due to insurance paperwork requirements. The insurance company will need to verify and audit the paper trail before providing any coverage.

Some guarantors have bond return review procedures that can take 30 to 60 days to return to underwriting for review. Many small and medium-sized businesses were expected to reach out to their insurance companies to begin the review process ahead of the Supreme Court decision. “If you’re hoping the collateral will be returned in due course, the squeaky wheel can make that happen a little faster,” Jennifer Diaz, a board-certified international attorney at Diaz Business Law, recently told CNBC.

Democrats on Capitol Hill did not expect to pressure the administration to take action after the court loss. U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent asking for details on the administration’s plans to refund businesses that paid illegal tariffs.

“Many American businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, have struggled to pay these illegal tariffs, and for some, financial hardship has pushed them to the brink of bankruptcy,” Cantwell wrote. “It is essential that the Treasury implements a swift and transparent process to remediate the financial harm caused by these illegal tariffs.”