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.

What importers need to know now

If the Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs, refunds will not be immediate or automatic. Based on historical precedent and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) behavior, importers should anticipate a structured, documentation-heavy process with substantial scrutiny.

There are three likely pathways for tariff refunds:

• Procedural routes, including post summary corrections, protests and administrative petitions.
• Legal routes, including filings before the Court of International Trade.
• A combined approach, which is the most probable and the most resource-intensive.

Refund eligibility will not be based solely on whether duties were paid. CBP has denied claims in the past based on factors such as whether the importer passed the tariff cost to its customer, whether tariffs were capitalized into inventory, whether related party pricing distorted valuation or whether the importer hedged against tariff exposure. Some attorneys are even exploring potential consumer class actions, which introduces additional uncertainty around who the “injured” party legally is.

The standard is not just about filing. The standard is demonstrating that the importer was harmed and that the entry was correct and compliant at every stage.

Critical preparation steps for importers

Regardless of when the ruling is issued, the steps required for preparation remain the same.

1. Pull ACE data now: Importers need to pull ACE 001, 002 and 013 reports immediately. These reveal which entries included IEEPA duties and whether those entries have liquidated. For liquidated entries, Section 1514 requires that protests be filed within 180 days. If that window closes, the liquidation is final, and the refund opportunity is gone.
2. Build complete entry files: Companies should assemble every document tied to each affected entry. That includes purchase orders, proof of payment, transportation records, customs entry documentation, broker invoices and internal accounting records. If related party pricing was used, transfer pricing studies must be reviewed to ensure valuation meets customs standards. Any mismatch between declared value and final payment could raise compliance flags.

Looking ahead

A ruling in favor of importers could open the door to a refund pool approaching $290 billion across all affected jurisdictions. That scale is unprecedented and will strain CBP’s existing capacity, which is already underfunded and understaffed. Early, accurate and complete filings will rise to the top. Late or incomplete filings may be denied or overtaken by administrative backlog

Importers who begin preparing today will be well-positioned to act immediately when the ruling is announced and pursue potential tariff refunds with the documentation and strategy already in place. Those who wait may find that the window for recovering money closes far faster than expected.

Stay informed and connected

The trade environment is not stabilizing. Whether through IEEPA, Section 122, Section 201 or Section 338, tariff activity will remain a key tool of economic policy. With a Supreme Court decision imminent, importers need to be ready for both potential relief and potential new tariff waves.

For clear guidance as tariff policy and global trade conditions continue to shift, join Baker Tilly’s weekly Trade policy and tariff update webinars led by Pete Mento, held most Thursdays from noon to 1 p.m. ET. These sessions offer timely updates, practical perspectives and straightforward discussions to help you stay ahead in a fast-changing trade environment.

The information provided here is of a general nature and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any individual or entity. In specific circumstances, the services of a professional should be sought. Tax information, if any, contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties, nor should such information be construed as an opinion upon which any person may rely. The intended recipients of this communication and any attachments are not subject to any limitation on the disclosure of the tax treatment or tax structure of any transaction or matter that is the subject of this communication and any attachments.