The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Note on Tariff Refunds
Thanks to our victory in the tariff case before the Supreme Court, businesses that paid billions of dollars in illegally collected tariffs can seek refunds. But the process may be difficult.

Since we prevailed in our tariff case at the Supreme Court today, and even before, I have gotten many questions about tariff refunds. US importers who paid illegally collected IEEPA tariffs are eligible for up to $175 billion in refunds. As I see it, justice requires repayment of every penny - with interest! Administration claims that repayment is too difficult ring hollow. They shouldn't have illegally taken much money in the first place. And, in the litigation in the lower courts, they argued for stays of the injunctions against them on the grounds that - if we won - the businesses victimized by the tariffs would be eligible for refunds once the litigation reached a conclusion.
However, I am not an expert on the tariff refund process. I became involved in this case because of my expertise in constitutional law and issues involving emergency powers. A tariff refund specialist I am not. Thus, I am not the right person to ask about how to get back the illegally collected tariff payments.
However, I would like to refer anyone interested in this issue to an excellent September 2025 Lawfare article by Joshua Claybourn. Josh helped organize some important amicus briefs for our case, and - unlike me - he really does have expertise on the issue of refunds. His article provides a valuable overview of the tariff refund process. Here is an excerpt from it:
This piece examines the core legal obligation of the U.S. government to refund unlawfully collected tariffs, including (a) the statutory framework under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, governing the finality and correction of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) decisions; (b) judicial precedents confirming the government cannot retain illegally exacted duties; (c) administrative mechanisms available for importers seeking tariff refunds; and (d) procedural implications arising from recent and historical court decisions mandating refunds.
There is a strong legal basis for importers to recover duties unlawfully collected under IEEPA. However, importers must comply with statutory deadlines and administrative procedures—such as timely protests or claims—to preserve refund rights. The government's obligation to refund such amounts, along with any applicable interest, will arise once courts definitively invalidate these tariffs, subject to any procedural bars under 19 U.S.C. § 1514.
Finally, I should note that - as of today - I am no longer involved in the tariff litigation as an attorney (my part of the case is over), and thus have no plans to be involved in refund litigation.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
It is a disgrace that companies must submit mountains of paperwork to the United States Court of International Trade to get back money they never should have been charged. Those 12 judges will take years to order refunds.
I was told these companies just passed all the costs on to the consumer. So now they should "get money back" that they just passed the costs on for?
Yes. Whether they refund their customers is a customer relations problem, not a legal problem.
Does anyone anywhere have any expectation that the Trump administration will act in accordance with any court order to issue tax refunds? If they don't just ignore such an order outright, Trump will make sure that the process is so corrupt that only people he politically favors will get any refunds, and the rest will be tied up in delaying actions forever.
Trump is honoring this decision. He has honored other decisions. He honored all decisions in his first term against the border wall.
You've got TDS.
So what you are saying is that we lowly taxpayers are NOT getting our $2,000 tariff stimulus checks? 0 _ o
Congrats Professor. Very interesting case to be involved in and an interesting test of the Sup Ct's independence.
I keep remembering Treasury Sec Bessent's comments over the weeks/months about his prediction for what the court would do.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/18/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-bessent-trade-greenland.html
He was so optimistic!
Well, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has reason to be pleased. His two sons now running the family firm (Cantor Fitzgerald) have apparently been busy for the last several months buying up future tariff refund claims for 30 cents on the dollar.
The economies of scale enabled by setting up a single legal apparatus to process hundreds of companies' claims, should make that quite lucrative.
Wonder how Trump will feel about Lutnick stealing all his tariff money?
As Dr Phil would say,
“Good Luck with That!”
How about getting the Japs to pay for Pearl Harbor???
Frank
After reading the Lawfare article, I think 19 USC 1505(c) governs interest on refunds. The government determines the interest rate. But 19 USC 1504 and 1505(b) govern the procedures to determine when a refund is due. After reading them, I don't want to be an import/export lawyer.
Ilya Somin is a fool.
Remarks from the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States today.
Tariff revenue will be *unchanged* in 2026.
"Let's be clear about what today's ruling WAS and what it WASN'T. Despite the misplaced GLOATING from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets, and the very people who gutted our industrial base, the Court did not rule against President Trump's tariffs."
"Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even $1 of revenue."
"This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs."
"We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges."
"Treasury's estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs, will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026."
Just hold your “Dick Beaters” (Marine Corpse for “Hands”) there Ilya.
Remember my first real “Girlfriend” Penny Crotchrot, I think she was 15, I was 13 (love those older women) I’d be fricking playing the piano and she’d yawn,
But I thought “We” that’s “WE”, the People’s, Me, You, Joe 6-pack, Jamal Colt-45, Hey-Zeus the lawn guy,
Paid the Tariffs, NOT, the foreign Counties,
So if anyone’s entitled to a “Refund” it’s Moi (that’s French for “Me”) OK and Joe, Jamal, Hey-Zeus, (like they follow SCOTUSBLOG)
In fact I bought $500,000 of Canadian Cheese, no I don’t have a receipt.
Frank
Many of these companies (ie below) added "Tariff surcharges" to their products. Passing the costs onto consumers.
Are they going to be also passing on any refunds they get from tariffs to their consumers? I think not.
There's an easy fix. Congress can just pass a law retroactively making the tariffs legit for the time frame. No point in throwing away $100+ billion in revenue that companies have already recovered from their consumers.
https://qz.com/companies-adding-tariff-surcharges-1851775290#8-companies-already-adding-tariff-surcharges-expect-more-to-follow
OK Tariffs go down,
I’m guessing the Dow went up 1,000? Maybe 2,000? Free Trade FTW!!!!
If there was any doubt, Terror-Anne, Your Future? lots of Fire and Brimstone(what is Brimstone exactly?*)and Rubble, lots and lots of Rubble.
* it’s plain old Sulfur, should have known that, guess I missed “Sulfur day”
Frank
If tariffs were really so bad for the economy, then the stock market should be way up today. No, it is a typical day, except that gold is up 2%.
I was being Sarcastic, you got a touch of the Ass-Burgers too??
The argument around here has largely been Tariffs=Taxes and the costs will get passed on to the consumer. If we were to accept that as true...
Wouldn't that mean any refunds to a business who raised prices due to the tariffs be an unjust enrichment at the expense of the consumer?
As the anti-tariff globalists like Somin incessantly inform us, importers don’t really pay tariffs; they merely pass along the costs to consumers. If that is indeed the case, then the importers have lost nothing and have already been “compensated” by their consumers.
It’s just another thing to manage like Covid lockdowns and sanctions on Russia and whatnot.
Yes, it's a mess. The three dissenters warned of "immediate chaos over refunds and trade deals", and they are correct about that.
But the way to have avoided this chaos would have been to stay the tariffs at the district court level months ago, instead of dragging it out and then warning that it would be too disruptive to rule against the tariffs now that the court has delayed the ruling for so long.
Am I the only one who sees how disingenuous this is?