The decision by the United States Supreme Court that overturned tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), imposed by President Donald Trump against trading partners last year – the so-called “global reciprocal tariffs” – left a question: could the American government be forced to return billions of dollars already collected from these fees?
In their decision this Friday (20), the Supreme Court judges concluded that IEEPA does not authorize the US president to impose tariffs, as they understand that the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to impose taxes and charges on foreign trade. As a result, the tariffs of at least 10% applied globally, in addition to the additional fees imposed on countries such as China, Canada and Mexico under the justification of national emergency – those related to the fight against fentanyl and other drugs – were left without a legal basis.
However, the judgment did not directly address the fate of amounts already paid by thousands of importing companies during the measures’ validity.
Reimbursement must depend on new decisions
The possibility of refund, it seems, will have to be analyzed by lower courts, where lawsuits from companies questioning the charge are already being processed. Importers argue that, if the legal basis was considered invalid, the amounts collected should be returned.
Estimates cited in the American press indicate that reimbursement requests could reach high figures. The consultancy Capital Economics calculates that the requests could reach up to US$120 billion, while other projections mention even higher amounts, depending on the scope of the court decisions.
It is not yet clear whether any refund would be automatic or would depend on individual actions, nor whether the government could limit payments through procedural resources.
For Roberto Uebel, professor of International Relations at ESPM, this point tends to open a new prolonged legal dispute.
“I believe there are two scenarios here: the government can try to appeal this matter in the courts of first instance, in the district courts and also in the states. Or try to appeal in the Supreme Court itself so as not to have to reimburse, because we are talking here about a few hundred billion dollars that would have to come from the North American coffers to the importing companies”, he explained.
Trump himself stated during a press conference this Friday that the Supreme Court’s decision should trigger a long legal battle over the return of the amounts collected from the tariffs now annulled. Trump recalled that the Court did not clarify whether or not the government should keep the money already collected, which, in his opinion, will open space for new lawsuits.
“Don’t you think they should have put a sentence there saying ‘keep the money’ or ‘don’t keep the money’? It’s not discussed. We’re going to end up in court for the next five years,” warned the president.
Ricardo Caichiolo, professor of International Law and director of Ibmec Brasília, states that the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court opens up concrete space for reimbursement actions.
“When a charge is considered illegal or unconstitutional, it opens the way for refund requests. Affected companies can take legal action, including through collective actions. If the understanding that the charge was invalid from the beginning is consolidated, the government may be forced to return the amounts collected”, he explained.
Companies are already preparing actions
The association We Pay the Tariffs, which represents small US businesses affected by Trump’s tariffs, said the Supreme Court’s decision is just the beginning of a new stage in the dispute.
The association’s executive director, Dan Anthony, signaled that the entity should take legal action to pressure the White House for compensation or full refunds.
“A victory in court means nothing without real relief for the companies that paid these tariffs,” Anthony said.
The vice-president of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the think tank Cato Institute, Scott Lincicome, classified the Supreme Court decision as “good news for American importers” and argued that “the federal government must reimburse the tens of billions of dollars in customs duties” charged based on IEEPA. According to him, although the return process “may be simple”, it is more likely to involve new litigation and prolonged bureaucratic procedures.
The National Retail Federation (NRF), a trade association that represents several retail companies, celebrated this Friday’s decision. The entity’s executive vice president of government relations, David French, stated that the judgment “provides much-needed certainty for American companies and manufacturers” and added that the refund could “serve as an economic boost”, by allowing companies to reinvest in operations, employees and expansion.
According to an analysis by Bloomberg, around 1,500 companies had already filed lawsuits to seek reimbursement of amounts paid in tariffs even before the Supreme Court’s decision.
What remains in effect
Despite the IEEPA-based tariffs being struck down, the decision did not prohibit the Trump administration from using other legal instruments to impose trade tariffs.
In announcing his reaction to the judgment this Friday, Trump confirmed that he will keep active the tariffs applied by his administration under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which authorizes surcharges when imports are considered a threat to national security.
Among the measures currently in force under this legal basis are tariffs of 50% on steel and aluminum, in addition to 50% on copper-derived products, 25% on imported automobiles and automotive parts, and tariffs also applied to trucks, wood and furniture, among other sectors investigated under the same basis.
Trump also confirmed the maintenance of tariffs imposed based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, used mainly against China in response to trade practices considered unfair, such as illegal technology transfer and intellectual property infringement.
In the decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that it was not banning tariffs per se, but merely concluding that IEEPA – the economic emergency law – could no longer be used as a legal basis for them.
White House loses pressure tool for agreements
For Uebel, this Friday’s decision should not interrupt the use of tariffs as an economic instrument, but it could limit the way in which the Trump administration uses them for political and geopolitical objectives. According to him, US trade policy had been conducted more aggressively in recent months, with the recurring use of tariffs as an instrument of pressure to conclude bilateral agreements favorable to the United States.
“I don’t see this decision preventing, in a second moment, the continued use of tariffs for economic and commercial issues. Now it remains open whether the government has this device at its disposal to achieve political and geopolitical objectives”, said Uebel.
In the same vein, Caichiolo assesses that this Friday’s decision imposes relevant limits on the way in which the White House had been using tariffs as an instrument of pressure. According to him, tariffs were one of the main bargaining mechanisms of the government’s economic strategy.
“Tariffs were one of the main instruments of pressure in Trump’s economic strategy. With the decision, the White House loses agility and autonomy. Trade policy no longer depends solely on presidential decisions and once again requires more robust technical justifications or greater participation from Congress”, explains the professor.
For Caichiolo, the impact of this Supreme Court decision goes beyond the legal aspect and also reaches the diplomatic sphere, by affecting the bargaining capacity of the United States. According to him, the credibility of the tariff threat was the central element in the current US negotiating power.
“Bargaining power depends on the credibility of the threat. If commercial partners know that tariffs can be questioned and annulled in court, the ability to pressure decreases,” he said.
Constitutional limits on the “Imperial Presidency”
For Frederico Dias, professor of International Relations at Ibmec Brasília, the Supreme Court’s decision exposes a relevant institutional limit to the power of the American Executive.
According to him, the episode puts the concept of “Imperial Presidency” back into debate. The expression, according to the analyst, is used by scholars to describe the tendency of excessive concentration of decision-making power in the hands of the President of the United States, especially in matters of foreign policy and defense.
“For the White House, this means exposing a limit to what is called the Imperial Presidency. Trump’s strategy used an emergency law from the time of President (Jimmy) Carter, tested in the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, which allowed the president to react in a more immediate and centralized way in the face of international economic crises that represented a threat to national security”, he explained.
The Supreme Court’s decision, according to the professor, makes it clear that IEEPA is a crisis instrument and not a “blank check” to regulate tariffs without clear and specific authorization from Congress.
“More than a commercial issue, we have a discussion here about the constitutional limits of the US Presidency,” he stated.
Dias also highlighted that the government could face a high fiscal cost if compensation lawsuits filed by companies prosper. Furthermore, he noted that the economic results intended by the tariff policy were not fully consolidated. In this context, the preliminary estimate of American GDP in the third quarter of 2025, released this Friday by the US Department of Economic Analysis, reinforced the scenario of frustration: the economy had an annualized growth of 1.4%, below market projections, which indicated an expansion of 2.5%.
