Although the tariffs have been declared unlawful, refunds are not automatic.
In February 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision with sweeping implications for importers, logistics companies, and businesses that rely on global supply chains. The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, invalidating a series of tariff orders issued in 2025. For companies that paid duties under those measures, the ruling may create a pathway to recover substantial sums paid to the federal government.
Background: Tariffs Imposed Under Emergency Powers
Beginning in early 2025, the executive branch invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs on imports from numerous countries. These measures included tariffs targeting specific countries as well as broader reciprocal tariffs applied to a wide range of imported goods. The duties affected importers across industries, including manufacturing, logistics, construction, retail, and energy.
IEEPA traditionally authorizes the President to regulate financial transactions and property interests during national emergencies. Whether that authority extended to imposing tariffs became the central legal question.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court resolved the issue in consolidated cases including Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections. The Court concluded that the statutory authority to “regulate” importation under IEEPA does not include the power to impose tariffs. In affirming lower court rulings, the Court held that the tariff orders exceeded executive authority.
The decision effectively invalidated the tariff regime imposed under IEEPA and clarified the limits of presidential power in the trade context.
Refunds Are Not Automatic
Although the tariffs have been declared unlawful, refunds are not automatic. Duties paid to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are processed through a complex administrative system, and recovery may depend on the procedural status of each import entry.
Some entries may be addressed through administrative procedures, while others may require relief through the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Litigation Is Already Underway
Large importers have begun pursuing refunds through the Court of International Trade, seeking repayment of duties and interest. These actions reflect the significant financial stakes involved and underscore that judicial relief may play a central role in recovery efforts.
Recent court decisions have confirmed that the Court of International Trade has authority to order reliquidation of entries and refunds of duties found to be unlawfully imposed. The federal government has also acknowledged in litigation that refunds may be owed if the tariffs are invalid.
Contingency Representation Expands Access to Recovery
Because tariff refund claims can involve complex customs procedures and federal litigation, legal costs may deter some companies from pursuing recovery. Some law firms, however, are accepting tariff refund matters on a contingency fee basis, allowing importers to seek recovery without upfront legal fees and paying only if a refund is obtained.
This approach may broaden access to relief, particularly for small and mid-sized importers that might otherwise forego pursuing claims.
A Defining Moment in Trade Law
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant development in the separation of powers and the scope of executive authority over international trade. At the same time, it presents a practical opportunity for businesses to recover duties paid under an unlawful tariff regime.
Importers that paid tariffs under the 2025 IEEPA orders should evaluate their entries and consider their options promptly. With substantial sums potentially at stake, the decision is likely to generate ongoing litigation and shape the future landscape of trade enforcement and executive authority.
Join the conversation!