After Latest SCOTUS Ruling on Tariffs, Importers Face a New Wave of Uncertainty

The latest SCOTUS ruling on Trump’s tariffs struck down the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as a basis for broad duties. The ruling was expected to bring clarity. Instead, it’s created more uncertainty with shifting tariff authorities, complex administrative burdens and no guarantee that importers will ever recover duties already paid.

Head of Trade Policy at Hinrich Foundation, Deborah Kay Elms, believes the Court’s action will result in a pivot to other tariff guidelines and potential refunds. “The administration will not retreat from tariff tools but will simply shift to other statutory authorities,” she says. These may include:

• Section 122 (Balance of Payments), which allows global tariffs up to 15% for 150 days before requiring congressional action.
  
  
• Section 232 (National Security), a politically durable mechanism that protects industries deemed essential to national security. The Commerce Department would investigate the relationship to national security, after which the president would have authority to act if the agency determines his purposes align with the intent of the act.
  
  
• Section 301 (Unfair Trade Practices), the most resilient and difficult to unwind, and already in effect for investigations involving China and Brazil. This will likely be the tool of choice but requires more extensive effort to include other countries.

Elms believes IEEPA‑based tariff refunds are likely as the logic is straightforward. “Failing to return unlawfully collected duties would be difficult to defend publicly,” she says. However, issuing refunds will be administratively complex.

Who should receive the tariff refunds? This question is especially relevant to third‑party logistics providers who paid duties on behalf of clients and must determine how to pass those funds through. Some practitioners are also asking whether companies could claim interest for unlawfully collected duties, which is yet to be determined.

Similarly, should consumers receive refunds from retailers and other companies that raised prices to cover increased import fees?  

Expert opinions on refunds are divided.

While some experts believe refunds to corporations are possible, others warn that they aren’t guaranteed. The U.S. government has no immediate obligation to issue tariff refunds and may delay or narrow refund mechanisms. Section 122 and 232 contain numerous exemptions that could spark litigation over how new tariffs are applied. There is also uncertainty as to how newly negotiated deals between the White House and various countries will hold up, given the maximum that can be charged under Section 122 is 15% versus whatever a country might have previously agreed to.

This view anticipates a business climate marked by hesitation: companies slowing investment, delaying hiring and pausing capital planning as they wait for clarity on how the next round of tariffs will be structured and enforced.

Systemic risks are emerging.

Beyond the tariff refunds debate, importers and global businesses must also consider emerging systemic risks.

• Increased administrative complexity
  The shift from IEEPA to a patchwork of Section 122, 232 and 301 tariffs will introduce new compliance burdens. Companies will not only face lack of clarity on tariff rates but also on timing, exemptions and enforcement. For logistics providers, refund administration — if it happens — will be especially challenging.
  
  
• Slowed business planning
  The latest SCOTUS ruling on tariffs is expected to dampen capital investment and hiring as firms reassess supply chain strategies. The upcoming renegotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement could be influenced by the decision as well, adding yet another layer of unpredictability to North American trade.
  
  
• Diminished foreign direct investment
  International firms already frustrated by shifting U.S. trade rules could reconsider expansion plans. The global “enough is enough” sentiment reflects a growing concern that the U.S. regulatory environment is becoming too volatile for long‑term planning. Firms might pause U.S. trading in favor of trade partner diversification.
  
  
• Intensified legal and enforcement intricacies
  The Supreme Court’s opinion offers no remedy and poses a critical question: Who enforces compliance when the ruling constrains the executive branch? Traditionally, the executive branch implements Supreme Court rulings, but this decision challenges that expectation and introduces another element of unpredictability.

International law firm Cleary Gottlieb offers practical steps for importers.

While the policy landscape remains unsettled, companies can take concrete steps now. Cleary Gottlieb’s advisory outlines a structured approach to preparing for potential refund mechanisms and protecting recovery rights.1

• Identify all entries subject to IEEPA tariffs using internal records or data from customs brokers or the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE).
• Compile complete documentation, including entry summaries, invoices and packing lists, to support protests or refund claims.
• Determine liquidation status since the 314‑day liquidation window and 180‑day protest deadline will dictate available remedies.
• File protective protests or request liquidation extensions for entries nearing deadlines.
• Monitor Customs and Border Protection (CBP) communications for any automatic reliquidation or refund procedures.

There is opportunity amid the uncertainty.

The Supreme Court might’ve closed the door on IEEPA‑based tariffs, but it’s created a far more complex set of legal and enforcement challenges. U.S. trade negotiations are poised to rely more heavily on Sections 122, 232 and 301 Acts, each with its own administrative obstacles and regulatory vulnerabilities.

The trade environment is shifting toward a more fragmented and unpredictable tariff regime. While billions in IEEPA tariffs were collected unlawfully, there is no guarantee that refunds will be issued or that they will be issued in full, on time, or at all. For importers, the path forward requires vigilance, documentation and early action.

Synovus offers foreign exchange and trading expertise and insights, as well as cash and liquidity strategies. For more information, complete a short form and a Synovus Treasury & Payment Solutions Consultant will contact you with more details. You can also stop by one of our local branches.

Michael Babbitt is Head of Synovus’ Trade and Supply Chain Finance Origination Team. Babbitt also co-chairs the BAFT (Bankers Association of Finance and Trade) Regional Bank Committee which collaborates on international trade solutions. He was recently featured in a Medium article on how to manage supply chains during tariffs uncertainty .2