After Latest SCOTUS Ruling on Tariffs, Importers Still Face Uncertainty

The February 2026 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, predicted the Court’s action would 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 said. Possible alternatives could be based on three acts.

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

U.S. importers face a complex refund system.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented a refund mechanism — the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system — which launched April 20, 2026. Refunds will be administered in phases through a centralized electronic process, with importers expected to wait 60 to 90 days after filing before receiving payment.1

As expected, CAPE’s administration is complex and the program is mostly in the application phase. U.S. customs collected approximately $166 billion from over 330,000 importers across 53 million shipments, a volume that will take considerable time to work through.2

This administration is expected to continue pursuing tariffs through alternative statutory authorities — Sections 122, 232, and 301 — however the critical distinction is that these mechanisms carry greater congressional oversight requirements. As such, the administration can no longer act unilaterally and will need to navigate a more deliberate legislative and regulatory process to sustain its trade agenda. 

Countries that rushed into trade negotiations with the U.S. prior to the Supreme Court decision are now left wondering what they agreed to and if they are still bound considering the details of many of those agreements were never fully determined. For example, the maximum that can be charged under Section 122 is 15% versus whatever a country might have previously agreed to.

What can businesses expect from the CAPE program?

The program will be most beneficial to large corporations. To date, more than 75,000 companies have requested refunds but 15% have already been rejected.3 This is perhaps due to heavy paperwork and technical requirements. The refunds are processed entry-by-entry, according to specific import records. Simpler cases are processed first, while older or disputed claims may take longer. In addition, the program is experiencing portal glitches, temporary shutdowns and access issues — as expected given its massive scale.

Among early filers, General Motors is expecting roughly $500 million in tariff refunds and raised its earnings report accordingly but, given the filing period, it is unclear when the corporation will be reimbursed. In addition, GM still faces tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.   

Only importers can directly claim refunds. However, FedEx and UPS have pledged partial pass-throughs. Few companies have committed. So, most consumers won’t see direct refunds. Any benefit to consumers would more likely show up as gradual pricing adjustments over 2026 and 2027.4

Small companies are less likely to receive refunds because filing requires specialized access, clean entry-level records, and technical submissions that many don’t have time or staff to manage. Eligibility can depend on entry status and deadlines, and professional help can be so costly that some firms won’t file — especially if the business has closed or reorganized.

Systemic risks are emerging.

Beyond the tariff refunds challenges, 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.
  
  
• Slowed business planning
  The 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 ruling still poses a critical question: Who enforces compliance when decisions constrain 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.5

• 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 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 timely issued and the tariffs structure is still evolving. 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 .6