US Tariffs Legal Challenges and American laws in Economic Trade and tariff tax legislation as government policy and import export agreements as justice scale political economic policies.
Listen to this post

On, February 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Learning Resources v. Trump, which challenged the President’s imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Eco­nomic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). The Court ruled 6-3 that the IEEPA statute, which permits the President “to regulate . . . importation” does not confer any tariff-setting authority. In its decision, the Supreme Court struck down both the IEEPA Trafficking Tariffs and the IEEPA Reciprocal Tariffs.

The Court’s decision was confined to the legal issues and does not address whether or how the Government should refund IEEPA tariffs already paid.  As of this writing, companies should also continue to pay the tariffs until instructed otherwise by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). The government may voluntarily stop ongoing collection in light of the Supreme Court decision, or an injunction may be issued by the U.S. Court of International Trade.  

Next Steps:

  • The V.O.S. Selections case will return to the CIT. The government may voluntarily announce that it will stop collecting the tariffs going forward, or the CIT may issue an injunction ordering the government to do so.
  • Either in V.O.S. Selections or another case, the CIT will determine how IEEPA tariffs already paid should be refunded.  The government may also institute a process on its own. Whatever the CIT decides about remedy, an appeal may follow.
  • Importers should continue to monitor their imports subject to IEEPA tariffs and should consult with counsel on whether individual complaints should be filed given this decision.

Questions:

Q:        How did the Supreme Court rule in the case?

A: The Supreme Court found that the IEEPA Trafficking and IEEPA Reciprocal Tariffs were unlawful.  A key passage from the Opinion — “Based on two words separated by 16 others in … IEEPA,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, ” ‘regulate’ and ‘importation’–the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Q:        What tariffs are now unlawful given the ruling?

A: Only the IEEPA Trafficking and the IEEPA Reciprocal tariffs were held unlawful.  All other tariffs and duties imposed under other provisions of the law are still in effect and are not subject to this opinion.

Q:        My goods are subject to steel, aluminum, and copper tariffs – can I stop paying duties?

A: No, the Supreme Court opinion is limited to IEEPA Trafficking and IEEPA Reciprocal tariffs. If goods are subject to steel, aluminum, copper, wood products, or other Section 232 tariffs, those tariffs are still in effect and must continue to be paid. This decision also does not apply to Section 301 tariffs.

Q:        Does the opinion mean my company will get a refund on IEEPA tariffs paid on prior imports?

A:        The opinion does not address the process by which refunds will be issued. The CIT will decide whether and how refunds will be issued. Several weeks or months could pass before the CIT issues a decision. Alternatively, the government may announce a refund process on its own.

Q:        Will my company still need to pay IEEPA tariffs on goods entered after the SCOTUS decision?

  1. Yes, as of this writing. Until CBP permits entries to be filed without the corresponding IEEPA tariff provision or until the CIT issues an injunction preventing the government from collecting the tariffs, all IEEPA tariffs must continue to be posted at the time of entry.

Q:        Will the U.S. Government automatically give refunds?

  1. This is unknown at this time.

Q:        Does my company need to file a complaint with the Court of International Trade to receive a refund?

  1. Actual refund procedures have not yet been established, and some individuals have raised the possibility of CBP voluntarily issuing refunds.  Nevertheless, we expect that a number of importers will still file complaints at the CIT in order to protect their right to a refund in anticipation of that procedure (i.e., a CIT complaint) being essential to receiving IEEPA refunds. The CIT may continue to stay all those cases pending the outcome of the CIT’s decision on remand in VOS Selections. Alternatively, the CIT may forgo further substantive action in VOS Selections and instead form a steering committee to address the other later-filed cases. As a result, we recommend that clients discuss these concerns with their HB team member to address individual company concerns and legal strategies.

We encourage all clients to be patient as this is an evolving situation and Husch Blackwell’s International Trade and Supply Chain team will continue to monitor and post updates as they become available.