The Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s biggest and boldest tariffs. But the justices left a $133 billion question unanswered: What's going to happen to the money the government has already collected in import taxes now declared unlawful?
Companies have been lining up for refunds. But the way forward could prove chaotic.
When the smoke clears, trade lawyers say, importers are likely to get money back — eventually. “It’s going to be a bumpy ride for awhile," said trade lawyer Joyce Adetutu, a partner at the Vinson & Elkins law firm.
The refund process is likely to be hashed out by a mix of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, the specialized Court of International Trade in New York and other lower courts, according to a note to clients by lawyers at the legal firm Clark Hill.
"The amount of money is substantial," Adetutu said. "The courts are going to have a hard time. Importers are going to have a hard time.’’
Still, she added, “it’s going to be really difficult not to have some sort of refund option’’ given how decisively the Supreme Court repudiated Trump’s tariffs.
In its 6-3 opinion on Friday, the court ruled Trump’s attempt to use an emergency powers law to enact the levies was not valid. Two of the three justices appointed by Trump joined the majority in striking down the first major piece of his second-term agenda to come before them.
At issue are double-digit tariffs Trump imposed on almost every country in the world last year by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court ruled that the law did not give the president authority to tax imports, a power that belongs to Congress.
The U.S. customs agency has already collected $133 billion in IEEPA tariffs as of mid-December. But consumers hoping for a refund are unlikely to be compensated for the higher prices they paid when companies passed along the cost of the tariffs; that's more likely to go to the companies themselves.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh dinged his colleagues for dodging the refund issue: “The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.’’
Borrowing a word that Justice Amy Coney Barrett — who sided with the majority — used during the court’s November hearing on the case, Kavanaugh warned that “the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’"
“I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” Trump told reporters at a press conference Friday, in which he decried the court's decision and said he was “absolutely ashamed” of some justices who ruled against his tariffs. "We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.''
The end of the IEEPA tariffs could help the economy by easing inflationary pressures. The tariff refunds — like other tax refunds — could stimulate spending and growth. But the impacts are likely to be modest.
Most countries still face steep tariffs from the U.S. on specific sectors, and Trump intends to replace the IEEPA levies using other options. The refunds that do get issued will take time to roll out — 12 to 18 months, estimates TD Securities.
The U.S. customs agency does have a process for refunding duties when importers can show there’s been some kind of error. The agency might try to build on the existing system to refund Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, said trade lawyer Dave Townsend, a partner with the law firm Dorsey & Whitney.
And there has been a precedent for courts making arrangements to give companies their money back in trade cases. In the 1990s, the courts struck down as unconstitutional a harbor maintenance fee on exports and set up a system for exporters to apply for refunds.
But the courts and U.S. customs have never had to deal with anything like this — thousands of importers and tens of billions of dollars at once.
“Just because the process is difficult to administer doesn’t mean the government has the right to hold on to fees that were collected unlawfully,″ said trade lawyer Alexis Early, partner at the law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.
Ryan Majerus, a partner at King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official, said it's hard to know how the government will deal with the massive demand for refunds. It might try to streamline the process, perhaps setting up a special website where importers can claim their refunds.
But Adetutu warns that “the government is well-positioned to make this as difficult as possible for importers. I can see a world where they push as much responsibility as possible onto the importer’’ — maybe forcing them to go to court to seek the refunds.
Many companies, including Costco, Revlon and canned seafood and chicken producer Bumble Bee Foods, filed lawsuits claiming refunds even before the Supreme Court ruled, essentially seeking to be at the head of line if the tariffs were struck down.
There are likely to be more legal battles ahead. Manufacturers might, for example, sue for a share of any refunds given to suppliers that jacked up the price of raw materials to cover the tariffs.
“We may see years of ongoing litigation in multiple jurisdictions,’’ Early said.
Consumers, though, are unlikely to enjoy a refund windfall. The higher prices they’ve had to pay would likely be hard to attribute to a specific tariff. Should they pursue refunds anyway? Early wouldn’t advise wasting money on legal fees, but said: “In America, we have the ability to file a lawsuit for anything we want.’’
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat and Trump antagonist, is demanding a refund on behalf of his state's 5.11 million households. In a letter addressed to Trump and released by Pritzker's gubernatorial campaign, the governor said the tariffs had cost each Illinois household $1,700 — or $8.7 billion. Pritzker said failure to pay will elicit "further action.''
Nevada Treasurer Zach Conine submitted a payment request to the federal government for $2.1 billion to recoup the costs of the tariffs, his office announced Friday.
“As Nevada’s chief investment officer, I have a responsibility to try to recoup every single dollar that the Trump Administration takes from Nevada families," Conine said in a statement.
AP Writers Lindsay Whitehurst and Christopher Rugaber in Washington, Jessica Hill in Las Vegas and John O'Connor in Springfield, Illinois, contributed to this story.
© Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
28 Comments
Would I lie to you?
I'm calling it. There will be substantial amount of fraud related to these tariff refunds.
J101
Donald signed these orders. Thus he's in charge, his personal responsibility. Take his personal money first.
kohakuebisu
All together now!
Sell that plane! Sell that plane!
KanagawaCoffeeGuy
The “now comes the hard work of issuing refunds” framing is designed to make this sound like a scandal. It’s not.
When a court rules that a particular statutory pathway wasn’t authorized, agencies unwind the action. If duties were collected under a law the Court says doesn’t apply, refunds are the normal legal remedy. That’s not corruption. That’s compliance with a judicial decision.
Also, let’s keep perspective: tariffs are paid by importers at the border. Refunds, if required, go back through that same administrative system. This isn’t the government cutting apology checks to random individuals — it’s a regulatory adjustment.
And none of this means the policy goal was illegitimate. It means the Court determined Congress didn’t clearly authorize this specific mechanism. If lawmakers believe the tariffs were justified, they can pass legislation to reinstate them properly.
Calling routine legal unwinding “the hard work” as if it’s fallout from misconduct is spin. It’s simply what happens in a system with checks and balances.
You can oppose tariffs. But processing refunds after a court ruling isn’t chaos — it’s how the rule of law works.
quercetum
Japan, of course, will still be expected to follow through on the $550 billion it committed—an unavoidable reminder of what it means to operate as a client state, or a vassal, depending on how straightforward one prefer to be.
The larger picture is that the United States now finds itself wrestling with the fallout of Trump’s tariff experiment. At a moment when the next two years are pivotal for the AI sector and for the future of robotics manufacturing, the country is instead preparing for a long season of paperwork, litigation, and internal skirmishing. While China pushes ahead, America risks being absorbed in its own administrative and political trench warfare.
Blacklabel
so he thinks his one state (with 3% of US population) gets 15% of the total? Before companies or consumers?
this whole refund idea is total stupidity- the claims are going to be 50x of the tariff amount.
iron man
The court ruling says nothing about “refunds”. Not in their authority whatsoever. I Agree
However, TRUMP tarrriff's were STRUCK DOWN, A bit of Tort Law could validly ensue, Does u.s. call it civil law?? ne'er mind legal firms should be worth a few bucks for your next market windfall??? They will be guaranteed millions after TRUMP gaff.
lincolnman
So how many of our MAGA-fans here believe Trump - when he said the US Supreme Court is now a compromised institution corrupted by "foreign interests"....
Isn't that a pretty big deal - one of the three branches of our government under foreign influence?
I thought the court was a "conservative" one - does that mean other conservative institutions have been infiltrated by foreigners?
How was this influence accomplished - bags of money? Gifts of multi-million dollar motor homes? Interest-free loans for sea-side mansions?
stickman1760
The tariffs are illegitimate according to the Supreme Court. The money should be refunded in full.
Cards fan
Oh, I see, so the President can unconstitutionally take money from companies and keep it? Don't be absurd.
Bob Fosse
Ruled illegal. Thus compensation is due.
That’s how the law should work.
Nasu
The ohio gas plant is going to be managed by Softbank and will use Japanese turbines from either Mitsubishi or Hitachi, and Toshiba or Mitsubishi are going to provide the transmission and the distribution. So using the money to pay Japanese companies to build and maintain.
The Georgia diamond plant gives a secure supply line for synthetic diamonds needed for semiconductor tool manufacturing. And gives a guaranteed supply for future chip tech like IOWN light chips that NTT will start mass producing.
The Texas oil port gives Japan's largest oil refiners priority access and favorable pricing. Not to mention if war breaks out in the middle east or in the pacific, China's oil will be cut off while Japan has a secured maritime route from the gulf of Mexico to Japan, even during peace time.
They arent just giving away money, it's all strategic and beneficial for both countries.
wallace
Repaid to the companies that paid them. Use the DOGE money saved.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Trump has a lot of work to do. Better cool it with the military assaults at home and abroad.
TaiwanIsNotChina
And these companies will not just forget they are owed!!!
wallace
Trump and his MAGA supporters had a meltdown today from their own conservative Supreme Court. What a shocker.
KanagawaCoffeeGuy
“Trump and his MAGA supporters had a meltdown today from their own conservative Supreme Court. What a shocker.Trump and his MAGA supporters had a meltdown today from their own conservative Supreme Court. What a shocker.”
Throwing around “MAGA meltdown” is just a lazy way to dismiss disagreement without engaging the issue. The Supreme Court of the United States isn’t “Trump’s Court,” and it’s not obligated to rule in favor of Donald Trump or his supporters. Judicial independence means the Court will sometimes issue decisions conservatives disagree with—that’s not a scandal, that’s separation of powers.
Criticizing a ruling is part of civic engagement, not evidence of hysteria. Labeling millions of people as “MAGA” to caricature their response avoids addressing the actual legal arguments. If someone believes the Court got it right, they should defend the reasoning. Mockery isn’t a substitute for substance.
KanagawaCoffeeGuy
“If you want to whine about nonsensical attacks, let's talk about that one first. Shall we?”
Or we can stick to the actual article at hand and stop going on tangents about other non related topics!
ian
He was ashamed of the justices hahahahaha
I didn't think he was capable of being ashamed.
Ebisugaoka
Follow the law and pay up!
smithinjapan
And it only took Trump a few minutes to screw the party once again immediately after the ruling! hahahahaha. Honestly, it's quite funny watching the whole thing, and if Americans have to pay more and suffer, so be it -- you get what you asked for. The best part is that the GOP had a way out that they could sell to the voters and Trump scuttled it. haha. Blue wave getting higher and higher.
Cards fan
Exactly, if Trump's tariff policies were so smart and popular, why not have congress cosign them and have them vote on it in the house. Wouldn't the GOP led congress be proud to pass such smart and popular legislation? Lmao
NCIS Reruns
I'll glady waive whatever funds are owed to me if they go toward a campaign to get rid of Trump.
ian
Companies who have been subjected to the tariffs most probably expected this and and have already prepared their lawsuits long ago
Ah_so
Quite right. On the comments section of Japan Today, we should discuss at a much more mature level than the President of the United States, who, for example, labels reporters "piggy".
We should not mock the geriatric, thin-skinned, megalomaniacal idiot. We should rather engage in reasoned debate with him about how he is going to refund the illegal taxes and even more importantly, how he proposes to fill the enormous budget black hole that has just opened up.
KanagawaCoffeeGuy
“Well if you still prefer his policies after it has been declared illegal that's fanaticism and stupidit”
Believing a policy goal is valid even if the legal method gets struck down isn’t fanaticism — it’s understanding how government works. Laws get challenged all the time.
If you need to call people stupid instead of making a point, that says more about you than me.
Ah_so
Correct - the issue of refunding illegal taxes does not fall within its remit.
To the persons who paid the taxes - in this case the companies. But it can also refer to individuals who made purchases from abroad on eBay or whatever.
TorafusuTorasan
Off to the library for some Saturday night book leerning?