According to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a significant portion of the billions amassed from President Donald Trump’s extensive “” could require repayment should the Supreme Court declare them unlawful. However, experts express doubt that the situation would unfold as federal authorities suggest.
Timothy Meyer, an international business law professor at Duke Law, states that “the outcome of that case will not be a directive to issue refunds to all who have paid the tariffs.” He adds, “Nevertheless, that ruling will determine the tariffs’ legality.”
Last week, the Trump Administration requested the Supreme Court to assess the lawfulness of the “Liberation Day” tariffs, after a ruling indicated Trump lacked the power to levy them under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the statute he cited. No prior president had utilized this law for tariff imposition.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer conveyed to the justices in an appeal, “The implications of this case are immense.” He further stated, “The President and his Cabinet members have concluded that these tariffs foster peace and unparalleled economic growth, and that withholding tariff authority would leave our nation vulnerable to trade retaliation without adequate safeguards, pushing America towards economic disaster.”
Over the weekend, Bessent voiced certainty that the tariffs “will prevail” before the Supreme Court, but warned that a ruling against them would necessitate the U.S. “to issue refunds for roughly half the tariffs, which would be detrimental to the Treasury.” He projected that potential refunds could range from $750 billion to $1 trillion.
Experts in international trade law informed TIME that numerous uncertainties persist concerning the tariff case, including the initial question of whether the Supreme Court will even take it up. Kathleen Claussen, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, commented, “A great deal hinges on how the court structures its judgment and precisely what it decides concerning the various aspects under its review.”
Both Claussen and Meyer indicated that the legal proceedings might continue until at least 2026.
Should the Supreme Court issue a ruling, the case might need to return to the Court of International Trade, which originally , to “assess whether it possessed the power to instruct the government to cease collecting the tariffs altogether,” Meyer explained.
Moreover, should the nation’s highest court invalidate the tariffs, Meyer and Claussen note it remains uncertain if all businesses impacted by the charges would gain any advantage.
Obtaining a refund could present difficulties for some entities. Firstly, businesses would be required to compile documentary proof of their import tax payments to claim any potential reimbursement. Experts suggest that furnishing such evidence might be complex, given the fluctuating import tax rates over time. Furthermore, companies often pay multiple tariff rates on a single product, depending on its origin. Meyer clarifies, “They will need to segregate the tariffs that were due solely to the IEEPA orders pertinent to this lawsuit.”
Meyer further observes that a majority of importers engage third-party firms to manage the import procedure. He points out, “Therefore, the entity eligible for a refund from the government will be the company that remitted the duty, which may not be the party responsible for initiating the import, and almost certainly not the consumer who ultimately bears the cost of the tariff.”
Moreover, businesses face constraints from the administrative process for disputing tariffs, which mandates that tariff modifications must be processed within 314 days, or just over ten months. Claussen suggests that the Supreme Court might extend this period or establish a unique procedure for businesses seeking refunds.
Importers are becoming increasingly anxious, she remarks. Claussen states, “They are uncertain about the steps to take to protect their rights.” She asks, “If they were given the chance for a refund, what actions would be required of them?”
