IEEPA tariff refunds and the Supreme Court ruling

For nearly a year, the United States has been operating under one of the most aggressive tariff regimes in modern history, with many importers now watching closely for potential tariff refunds. What began as an emergency action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) evolved into a far-reaching system of duties on imports from China, Mexico and Canada. The administration used IEEPA as a rapid pressure mechanism to force negotiating partners toward trade frameworks, bypassing traditional pathways that require investigation or congressional involvement. The result was a sudden spike in duties that reshaped pricing models, disrupted forecasting and pushed billions of dollars into the Treasury in a matter of months.

Now, the legal foundation of that system is under scrutiny. The Supreme Court is reviewing whether the use of IEEPA to levy broad, non-security-related tariffs went beyond the president’s statutory authority. If the Court agrees with importers and upholds earlier lower court findings, the consequences could be extraordinary. Not only could refunds reach into the hundreds of billions, but the decision may redefine the boundaries of emergency economic power and set a new precedent for how future administrations impose tariffs.

The question is not whether this ruling will matter. It is how prepared companies are to act on it. Many importers are still working to understand their exposure, while others are already preserving their rights and assembling documentation. When the decision comes, preparedness will separate those able to move quickly from those facing missed deadlines and unrecoverable losses.

The current tariff landscape

IEEPA tariffs have generated a level of revenue few anticipated. Since April 2, 2025, the United States has collected an estimated $75 - $85 billion in duties tied specifically to IEEPA actions. China took the heaviest hit, including a short window when rates escalated to a staggering 125%. Earlier projections placed total collections closer to $39 billion, a number now known to be significantly understated.

Mexico and Canada contributed an additional $17 - $25 billion combined. While the three countries were the primary targets of IEEPA tariffs, the issue extends far beyond them. If the Supreme Court rules that the tariff mechanism was unlawful, future litigation will expand to countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia and India, where duties were also applied under similar authority.

At the same time, Sections 232 and 301 remain active and sizable. Robotics, pharmaceuticals and other strategic sectors are undergoing new investigations. Even if IEEPA tariffs are invalidated, the White House has other tools readily available that require less legal interpretation. Section 122 permits the president to impose tariffs up to 15% without investigation for 90 days. Section 201 can support tariffs up to 50% for eight years following a streamlined International Trade Commission (ITC) review. Section 338 allows additional tariffs when the president deems that American commerce is being discriminated against.