On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize President Trump to impose tariffs. The Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump can be found at: 24-1287 Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (02/20/2026). While the decision clarifies the president’s authority to impose tariffs, a question still remains as to the process for obtaining tariff refunds, now held unconstitutional, that were already paid.
At issue in Learning Resources were the “Trafficking” and “Reciprocal” tariffs President Trump imposed to combat what he identified as the foreign threat of “drug trafficking” and “large and persistent” trade deficits, which had “led to the hollowing out” of the American base and “undermined critical supply chains.” President Trump declared a national emergency, deeming the foreign threat “unusual and extraordinary” and invoking authority under IEEPA to impose Trafficking tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico and Reciprocal tariffs against many countries. According to President Trump, the IEEPA power to “regulate . . . importation” provides the president with the power to impose tariffs.
However, Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution provides that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The Court found that the Taxing power very clearly includes the power to impose tariffs and that the Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch. Rather, the Framers gave “Congress alone” the power to impose tariffs during peacetime. Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U. S. 694, 700. Based on these foundational principles, the Supreme Court held that President Trump’s tariffs were taxes that could not be imposed by the President because Congress has sole authority to impose taxes and that authority had not been delegated to the President under IEEPA.
According to the Court, it has long expressed:
“reluctan[ce] to read into ambiguous statutory text” extraordinary delegations of Congress’s powers. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U. S. 697, 723 (quoting Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324). In several cases described as involving “major questions,” the Court has reasoned that “both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent” suggest Congress would not have delegated “highly consequential power” through ambiguous language. Id., at 723–724. These considerations apply with particular force where, as here, the purported delegation involves the core congressional power of the purse. Congressional practice confirms as much. When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms and subject to strict limits.
Against that backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will. That view would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy. It is also telling that in IEEPA’s half-century of existence, no President has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs, let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope. That “ ‘lack of historical precedent,’ coupled with the breadth of authority” that the President now claims, suggests that the tariffs extend beyond the President’s “legitimate reach.” National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, 595 U. S. 109, 119 (quoting Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 505). The “ ‘economic and political significance’ ” of the authority the President has asserted likewise “provide[s] a ‘reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress’ meant to confer such authority.” West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 721 (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 159–160). The stakes here dwarf those of other major questions cases. And as in those cases, “a reasonable interpreter would [not] expect” Congress to “pawn[]” such a “big-time policy call[] . . . off to another branch.” Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U. S. 477, 515 (BARRETT, J., concurring)
With the Court’s decision, it is now clear that President Trump’s IEEPA tariffs are unconstitutional and can no longer be imposed. But what about the $175 Billion in tariffs that have already been paid? Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not speak to refunds, and some are suggesting the federal government may seek to prevent them.
Tariff refunds are anything but simple. See: www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/entry-summary/protests. Generally, when an item enters the U.S. territory, the importer files an Entry Summary (Form 7501) with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). It then takes about 314 days for CBP to compute the total duties owed – a process called “Liquidation.” To change an Entry Summary for an item that has not yet been liquidated, it is important to file a “Post-Summary Correction” within 300 days of entry and at least 15 days before liquidation. After Liquidation, an importer who wishes to claim a refund must file a Protest within 180 days. If the protest is not filed on time, there is generally no other recourse. 19 U.S.C. 1514.
The path of Learning Resources—from Liquidation, to Protest, to the U.S. Court of International Trade (the “CIT”), and ultimately to the Supreme Court—has taken time, and much longer than 180 days. Because of questions regarding whether a tariff payment can be “reliquidated” back to CBP after the 180-day period, Learning Resources also filed suit to enjoin Liquidation pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
The injunction was considered by the U.S. Court of International Trade, and it held that stopping the liquidation process was unnecessary because the CIT has “the explicit power to order reliquidation and refunds where the government has unlawfully exacted duties.” The CIT emphasized in its ruling that the Trump administration had assured it that refunds would be available after reliquidation, that “importers will not experience irreparable harm,” and the CIT stated that the Trump administration cannot later change its mind. However, the Supreme Court’s silence on this issue, along with President Trump’s statements regarding the decision, is causing concern as to whether the government will follow the CIT’s decision.
While it is possible to wait for guidance from the government, it may be wise to act now. There may be an administrative process created to obtain a refund of post-liquidation tariffs from CBP. But the government may remain silent, and a lawsuit or Protest may be required to force its hand. It may be that importers who file suits and/or protests quickly, even after the 180-day period, will be in a better position to be first in line for refunds. Moreover, the refund process may be abused, as was the case with the Employee Retention Credit, Paycheck Protection Program, and other government refund programs. Widespread abuse, as occurred in those other programs, could cause long delays, unnecessary scrutiny, and denial of valid claims.
With these complications, importers and other affected parties need the assistance of experienced federal practitioners. Greenspoon Marder attorneys are available to assist importers and other affected parties in seeking tariff refunds. Should you wish to discuss your options, please contact Nick Richards at [email protected].
