
After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump's emergency tariffs as illegal on February 20, 2026, a complex battle emerged over refunding more than $130 billion in levies already collected. The Court's silence on the refund process left businesses, the administration, and consumers in uncertainty about who would recover the money and how, triggering lawsuits and political tensions over the coming days.
11 events · 6 days · 18 source articles
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs exceeded his constitutional authority. Chief Justice John Roberts upheld a lower court ruling finding the tariffs illegal. However, the Court's decision provided no guidance on what would happen to the estimated $130-180 billion already collected in tariff revenues.
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, President Trump slammed the decision and suggested he does not plan to refund the tariff fees already collected by the U.S. government. This statement set the stage for what would become a contentious legal and political battle over the billions in collected revenues.
Corporate America began demanding refunds for the more than $130 billion in levies assessed on imports. At least 1,000 companies had already sued the Trump administration over the tariffs. Trade experts warned the refund process could take years and would likely be resolved through lower courts, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett having predicted it would be "a mess" during oral arguments.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, companies began lining up for refunds of the now-unlawful tariff payments. Trade lawyers indicated that while importers were likely to eventually get money back, the process would be "a bumpy ride" that would be hashed out through a mix of lower courts and administrative proceedings. The $133 billion question remained largely unanswered.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent refused to answer direct questions about whether the administration would refund the roughly $134 billion collected under the struck-down tariffs. When pressed by CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union," Bessent avoided providing clarity on the refund process, deepening uncertainty for businesses awaiting guidance.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated that the Trump administration would need guidance from the courts on how to handle tariff refunds, saying "we need the court to tell us what to do." Greer acknowledged the Court had "created a situation" requiring further judicial clarification, while also indicating the administration was working to "reconstruct" its tariff policies after the ruling.
Former U.S. trade officials and international trade lawyers outlined the uncertainties surrounding the tariff refund process. Greta Peisch, former general counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, discussed the policy gray areas. Janet Whittaker of Clifford Chance predicted the refund issue would likely return to the U.S. Court of International Trade, with hundreds of businesses facing further litigation to recover their payments.
Neal Katyal, one of the lawyers who successfully defended U.S. businesses in the Supreme Court case against Trump's tariffs, argued publicly that the federal government must refund affected companies with interest. This position set legal expectations for how the refund process should proceed, though the administration had not yet committed to any specific approach.
Shipping giant FedEx became the first major American company to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking tariff refunds following the Supreme Court ruling. Despite courts not yet establishing a formal refund process, FedEx moved forward to recoup the tariff fees it had paid, setting a precedent that other companies were expected to follow.
Trade experts clarified that American shoppers who paid higher prices due to the tariffs were unlikely to receive any refunds, or at best "pennies on the dollar." The roughly $180 billion collected under the struck-down tariffs was paid directly by businesses and indirectly by consumers through higher prices. Any refund process would prioritize businesses that made the direct payments, not end consumers.
Swiss chemicals company Clariant reported that customers were demanding payback for tariff costs following the Supreme Court ruling. CEO Conrad Keijzer indicated that international businesses were now expecting compensation for the tariff-related price increases they had absorbed. The Financial Times highlighted the potential political embarrassment of the Trump administration having to issue refunds to Chinese companies, calling it "a terrible look."