by Craig Brightup, The Brightup Group —
With many legal observers predicting the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will rule against President Trump’s ability to use the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose “reciprocal tariffs” on some 200 countries and “fentanyl tariffs” on Canada, Mexico and China, American companies that paid the tariffs are positioning for potential refunds. Perhaps foremost is that trade lawyers and shipping brokers have been advising importers to preserve their right to IEEPA tariff refunds by filing protests with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) before liquidation or requesting that CBP extend liquidation dates and corresponding protests pending SCOTUS’s decision.
Also, Costco recently made headlines by taking the additional step of filing a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in hopes of preserving its refund eligibility if SCOTUS strikes down the tariffs. Costco felt that a Dec. 15, 2025, liquidation deadline could prevent the IEEPA tariffs it paid from being refunded because CPB denied its request to delay that date.
An importer has six months to file a protest contesting liquidation, but COSTCO said the lawsuit was necessary because importers aren’t guaranteed refunds if SCOTUS strikes the IEEPA tariffs. Other companies that filed similar lawsuits with the CIT include Kawasaki Motors, Revlon and Yokohama Tire, along with many lesser-known brands.
However, the strategy of filing such lawsuits with the CIT may have hit a dead end on Dec. 15 when the CIT denied a plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in its litigation. Specifically, auto parts retailers failed to convince the CIT that a preliminary injunction was necessary to preserve their potential right to IEEPA tariff refunds.
It’s not known how SCOTUS will address the issue of refunds if it rules against IEEPA tariffs in the consolidated cases Learning Resources v. Trump/Trump v. V.O.S. Selections. Options range from a ruling that terminates IEEPA tariffs prospectively which allows previously collected tariffs to remain in place, to a ruling that limits refund eligibility only to named litigants, to a ruling that covers all IEEPA tariffs paid since early 2025 with the CIT establishing a system for tariff refund applications.
Finally, despite Administration statements since the Nov. 5 oral arguments before SCOTUS that the IEEPA tariffs will be upheld, it has been racing to liquidate tariff payments to make it more difficult for companies to obtain refunds. It’s also known that Administration officials are looking to reimpose various IEEPA tariffs under other trade statutes including Sections 301 and 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962, and Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930.
Other tariff developments suggest the Administration is now more sensitive to the impact tariffs have had on “affordability” issues as well as business uncertainty. One example is the announcement by the U.S. Trade Representative in mid-December that retroactively reduced IEEPA tariffs on Swiss exports from 39% to 15% dating to Nov. 14, 2025.
The Administration also recently announced it will delay higher tariffs on computer chips from China until 2027. And another “tariff retreat” coincided with New Year’s 2026 when President Trump delayed tariff increases for upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets and vanities for an additional year.
