On November 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS or Court) heard oral argument on the validity of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs. The Court, including conservative Justices, appeared skeptical of and hard pressed the Government on their claim that President Trump had authority to impose global tariffs under the IEEPA. SCOTUS is likely to invalidate the tariffs upholding lower courts’ decisions in Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287 and Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250. While we await the decision later this year or in early 2026, one thing is clear – it is absolutely critical that importers start planning a refund strategy now to ensure that refunds are received if/when IEEPA tariffs are invalidated by SCOTUS.
During the argument, both liberal and conservative Justices pressed the Government on the legitimacy of IEEPA tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that tariffs are an “imposition of taxes on Americans” and that this “has always been the core power of Congress.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether the phrase “regulate importation” had ever been used to grant tariff authority, whether in the U.S. code or elsewhere in history. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked several pointed questions expressing skepticism regarding the constitutionality of IEEPA tariffs, indicating that it would be effectively impossible for Congress to take back tariffing powers from the president because a veto-proof majority would be required to rescind the declared emergencies.
A likely key consideration for the Justices is the “major questions doctrine,” which was articulated by the conservative Justices recently in 2022. This doctrine provides that Congress cannot delegate policy decisions to the executive branch on questions of major economic or political significance without explicitly authorizing those policies. Justices Gorsuch and Roberts appeared skeptical that this doctrine did not apply to IEEPA cases, seemingly concerned about diminishing the limits on the president’s power.
Notably, Justices also had questions about what the refund process would look like, should they hold IEEPA tariffs unconstitutional. Counsel for one of the plaintiffs indicated that plaintiffs specifically listed in the SCOTUS cases would get refunds, proposing that other affected importers go the usual refund route provided under the law. While this was not discussed in detail during the oral argument, there could be several alternatives to obtain refunds, including filing an administrative protest with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), filing a separate case in the U.S. Court of International Trade, or otherwise contacting CBP to compel refund in line with the forthcoming SCOTUS decision. Additionally, SCOTUS may direct CBP to reliquidate applicable entries or issue a declaratory judgment to direct lower courts to determine a solution consistent with its opinion.
Regardless of the refund scenario Justices choose should tariffs be invalidated, each refund scenario will require substantial preparation and data collection by importers. As such, based on the Justices’ unease with the Government’s arguments, we strongly recommend that importers start planning now for possible future refunds of IEEPA tariffs.
You may reach out to one of the following trade professionals here to get ahead of the issue and develop strategies to assist in streamlining the process, whether via protests, tariff actions, or otherwise communicating with CBP.
Early Refund Planning Paramount for Importers If IEEPA Tariffs Ruled Invalid