Act Fast for Tariff Refunds as Trump Walks Back DOJ Assurances

The immediate practical consequence for importers after the US Supreme Court struck down many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs is the prospect of recovering an estimated $170 billion in previously paid duties.

Yet with the court silent on remedies and refunds, importers now face one of the largest customs refund operations in modern history—a complex endeavor blending processes at Customs and Border Protection and litigation at the Court of International Trade—that carries enormous fiscal consequences.

In the Feb. 20 decision, the justices held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t authorize the president to impose tariffs. The ruling invalidates sweeping duties that Trump levied on nearly every product imported from nearly every country—tariffs ranging from 10% baselines to much higher rates in many cases—imposed under declared national emergencies to address foreign threats and trade imbalances.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, sided with small businesses and a coalition of states that initiated the lawsuits. He explained that the president’s reliance on the phrase “regulate ... importation” (separated by 16 other words in the statute) as authority to “impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time” was unlawful.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in dissent, warned that the government “may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs,” adding that “the refund process is likely to be a mess.”

The dissent’s warning may prove prescient. Even before the court ruled, more than 1,500 importers had turned to the CIT to protect their refund rights. In those cases, importers sought to suspend liquidation, which is the point at which duties become “final and conclusive” and often can’t be recalculated later to remove an unlawful tariff.

The Department of Justice opposed suspension, arguing it was unnecessary. It assured the court that even if entries liquidated, the government would “not object” to recalculating duties found unlawful, would “issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any post-judgment interest that accrues,” and that litigants were “guaranteed payment” by the government if the court struck down the tariffs.

Relying on those repeated assurances, the CIT allowed liquidation to continue but cautioned that legal principles would “prevent the Government from taking an inconsistent approach” later.

In other words, for parties with pending CIT suits, the government couldn’t “assume a contrary position to argue that refunds are not available” after they became final and conclusive with liquidation.

But here’s the rub. Just hours after the opinion was released, Trump called the ruling “deeply disappointing” and highlighted the court’s silence on the fate of collected funds: “Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don’t keep the money?” he said. “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent echoed the view that same day, describing the tariff revenue as “in dispute” and predicting that determining who, if anyone, gets refunds could take weeks, months, or more, adding the caveat that “I’ve got a feeling the American people won’t see it.”

Those comments mark a sharp pivot from the government’s earlier position in the CIT litigation. Yet the administration’s post-ruling posture can’t erase its prior commitments in court.

The landscape inevitably will continue evolving in the coming days, weeks, and months. Only one thing is certain: the Supreme Court has drawn a firm line on executive tariff authority under IEEPA, but the return of up to $170 billion in unlawfully collected duties will require holding the government to its prior representations in the CIT.

The tariff refund process will implicate numerous facets of corporate operations, including tax treatment, accounting recognition, contractual pass-through disputes, M&A valuations, and more.

For importers and their counsel, the clock is ticking. The path to recovery will demand swift, strategic—and potentially aggressive— action amid mounting uncertainty, as the administration’s post-ruling stance signals a more combative fight over the return of the tariffs.

Given the uncertainty, importers should move quickly to preserve potential refund rights. They should calendar protest deadlines, monitor liquidation status through the Automated Commercial Environment, and identify entries that have liquidated or are nearing finality before those entries become final and conclusive.

In coordination with trade counsel, importers should determine the appropriate procedural path—whether post-summary corrections, administrative protests, or actions before the Court of International Trade—and take timely steps to invoke available remedies.

They also should assemble complete entry documentation and, with counsel, evaluate the broader financial implications of any recovery, including statutory interest, tax treatment, accounting recognition, and contractual pass-through obligations.

The sums are historic, the stakes are real, and importers who act swiftly will be best positioned to hold the government to its word.

The case is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, U.S., No. 24-1287, 2/20/26.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Ashley Akers is a partner at Holland & Knight and former senior trial counsel in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice from 2017 to 2024.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines