On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision addressing the President’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs. In holding that IEEPA does not authorize the sweeping tariff measures at issue, the Court resolved a significant statutory question that had shaped trade policy throughout 2024 and 2025.
For importers that paid duties under those IEEPA-based tariffs, however, the decision marks an important transition rather than the end of the story.
This article explains what the Supreme Court decided about IEEPA tariffs, what the ruling means for tariff refunds and previously paid duties, and what importers may wish to evaluate in light of the evolving procedural landscape.
Supreme Court Holds IEEPA Does Not Authorize Tariffs
In its February 20 opinion, the Court concluded that IEEPA does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs of the type at issue. The Court’s analysis focused on statutory interpretation, emphasizing the absence of clear congressional authorization for tariff imposition within IEEPA’s text and structure.
Thus, the ruling invalidates the legal foundation for those tariffs going forward. It represents a significant clarification of the scope of executive power in the trade context and reinforces that tariff authority must rest on clear congressional delegation.
Notably, the Court did not:
- Order automatic refunds of duties already collected;
- Establish a government-wide refund process; or
- Resolve how previously paid duties should be addressed administratively.
The opinion answers the statutory question, but it does not prescribe the remedy.
Post-Decision Developments
In the days following the decision, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) released a message to shippers indicating that it has ceased collection of the challenged IEEPA tariffs.
At the same time, companies have continued to pursue or initiate litigation in the U.S. Court of International Trade, seeking declaratory relief and refunds of previously paid duties. The total revenue implicated by the ruling could exceed $175 billion.
Legal commentary has generally characterized the decision as a significant shift in trade authority while noting that refund mechanisms remain unsettled.
These developments reflect an important but measured reality: the merits question has been resolved, but procedural and remedial issues are still developing.
What the Decision Does (and Does Not) Mean for Importers
1. The statutory basis has been invalidated.
Importers now have a Supreme Court ruling concluding that IEEPA does not authorize the tariff program at issue. That is a substantial development on the merits.
2. Refunds are not automatic.
The opinion does not direct Customs and Border Protection to initiate blanket reliquidation or repayment. Whether refunds will occur through litigation, administrative guidance, or some hybrid approach remains to be seen.
3. Individual entry posture still matters.
Although the Court’s holding applies broadly, importers’ procedural positions may differ depending on:
- Entry dates;
- Liquidation status;
- Whether protests were filed; and
- Whether litigation is pending.
The Supreme Court decision does not eliminate those distinctions. It also does not clearly establish that one procedural posture is necessarily superior to another at this stage.
Practical Considerations for Importers
Some commentary in the trade community has emphasized timing considerations and the importance of preserving rights before entries reach finality. However, because the Supreme Court did not provide answers as to the refund process and how the refunds will be achieved, there is no “one size fits all” procedural approach for importers. Much will depend on:
- How the CIT manages the pending cases;
- Whether consolidated proceedings emerge;
- Whether CBP issues uniform guidance;
- Whether the government seeks legislative or regulatory clarification.
There is no universal deadline created by the Supreme Court’s decision itself. The more practical focus for importers is understanding their own entry timelines and monitoring how the post-decision process unfolds.
Considering the Court’s ruling, importer-clients may consider the following:
- Review Entry Data: Understanding the scope of IEEPA duties paid—by date, amount, and status—remains foundational.
- Monitor CIT Proceedings: With multiple cases pending in the Court of International Trade, procedural guidance may develop through coordinated rulings or case management orders.
- Watch for Administrative Guidance: CBP has ceased collection of the challenged tariffs.
Whether CBP implements a standardized reliquidation or refund process is an open question. - Evaluate Procedural Posture: The Supreme Court’s decision is significant, but its practical impact will unfold over time. Importers may benefit from assessing their individual exposure and procedural status as the framework develops.
Looking Ahead
The February 20 opinion represents a major development in the balance of trade authority between the Legislative and the Executive. It removes the statutory basis for the IEEPA tariff program and clarifies the limits of emergency economic powers in the tariff context.
What remains unresolved is the pathway to recovery of previously paid duties. That process will likely develop through ongoing litigation in the Court of International Trade, possible administrative action, and potentially further appellate proceedings.
For importers, the appropriate next step is informed evaluation:
- What duties were paid?
- What is the current procedural status of those entries?
- What options remain open?
As the post-decision framework takes shape, careful review of individual exposure—and continued monitoring of judicial and administrative developments—is the prudent course of action.
As refund mechanisms take shape, strategic positioning may matter. KJK’s Litigation & Arbitration attorneys can assist in evaluating litigation pathways and protecting your company’s interests. To discuss further, please contact Josie Forney (JFF@kjk.com) or Kyle Stroup (KDS@kjk.com).