The landmark decision that opened the door to billions in tariff refunds for U.S. importers.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was enacted in 1977 as a tool for the President to respond to unusual and extraordinary threats to national security, foreign policy, or the economy. For nearly five decades, IEEPA was used primarily to impose sanctions — freezing assets, blocking transactions, and restricting trade with specific countries or entities. It was never used to impose broad-based import tariffs until 2025.
The Constitution assigns the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" to Congress under Article I, Section 8. Over the years, Congress has delegated limited tariff authority to the President through specific statutes: Section 201 (safeguard tariffs), Section 232 (national security tariffs), Section 301 (unfair trade practices), and others. Each of these statutes includes procedural requirements, investigation periods, and scope limitations. IEEPA, by contrast, contains no tariff-specific provisions, investigation requirements, or rate limitations.
Multiple parties filed suit challenging the IEEPA tariffs, arguing that the statute does not authorize the imposition of duties on imports. The cases were consolidated and moved rapidly through the federal courts. The core legal question was narrow but consequential: does IEEPA's grant of authority to "regulate" commerce during a national emergency include the power to impose tariffs?
The government argued that tariffs are a form of commercial regulation and therefore fall within IEEPA's broad grant of emergency powers. Challengers countered that tariffs are constitutionally distinct from sanctions and transaction controls, that Congress has created specific statutory frameworks for tariff authority, and that reading IEEPA to include tariff power would render those specific statutes superfluous.
The Supreme Court sided with the challengers. In its opinion, the Court held that IEEPA's text authorizes the President to "regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent, or prohibit" certain transactions — but imposing a duty on imports is fundamentally different from regulating or prohibiting a transaction. A tariff does not block or regulate a transaction; it taxes it. The Court found that reading IEEPA to include tariff authority would effectively give the President unilateral power to impose taxes, a core congressional function with no meaningful procedural constraints.
The Court also applied the major questions doctrine, noting that the economic impact of the IEEPA tariffs — affecting hundreds of billions of dollars in trade — was far too significant to be based on an implicit reading of a statute that never mentions tariffs, duties, or import taxes. Congress, the Court held, does not "hide elephants in mouseholes."
Key holding: IEEPA does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs on imports. All duties assessed under IEEPA authority were unlawful from inception and are subject to refund through the CBP protest process.
The ruling applies exclusively to tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority. It is essential to understand what is and is not affected:
| Tariff Type | Authority | Affected? |
|---|---|---|
| IEEPA reciprocal tariffs (10–145%) | IEEPA | Yes — refundable |
| Section 301 tariffs (China) | Trade Act of 1974 | No |
| Section 232 tariffs (steel, aluminum) | Trade Expansion Act | No |
| Standard HTS duty rates | Tariff Act / HTSUS | No |
| Antidumping / CVD duties | Title VII | No |
The IEEPA tariffs were applied as an additional surcharge on top of any existing duties. For example, an import from Vietnam might have carried a 3% HTS baseline rate plus a 46% IEEPA reciprocal tariff. Only the 46% IEEPA component is affected by the ruling. The 3% HTS rate remains valid and is not refundable.
Because the Court ruled that IEEPA tariffs were unlawful from their inception — not merely prospectively invalid — importers who paid these duties at any point are eligible for refunds. This covers every entry from the date IEEPA tariffs first took effect through the date of the ruling. The refund mechanism is a CBP protest filed under 19 USC 1514.
However, the protest must be filed within 180 days of the liquidation date of each entry. Entries that were liquidated more than 180 days before the ruling date may already be outside the protest window. This is why immediate action is critical — the earliest entries affected are the most at risk of missing the deadline.
The ruling creates several immediate consequences for the trade community:
The volume of expected protests is unprecedented. CBP processes approximately 35 million entry summaries per year, and a significant portion of recent entries included IEEPA tariff components. Importers who file early and with complete documentation will likely see faster processing times.
If you paid IEEPA tariffs on any imports, here is what you should do now:
Automate the process: RefundAssist identifies your affected entries, calculates refund amounts, tracks deadlines, and generates ready-to-file CBP protest documents. Get a free estimate of your refund.
The Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs on imports. IEEPA authorizes blocking transactions and freezing assets during national emergencies, but tariffs are a congressional power under Article I of the Constitution. All IEEPA tariffs were declared unlawful.
Only tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority are affected. This includes the reciprocal tariffs of 10–145% applied to imports from various countries. Section 301 tariffs (China trade), Section 232 tariffs (steel/aluminum), and standard HTS rates are NOT affected by this ruling.
Yes. Because the Court ruled IEEPA tariffs were unlawful from inception, importers can file CBP protests to recover duties already paid. You must file within 180 days of the liquidation date for each entry under 19 USC 1514.
IEEPA tariffs are no longer being collected following the ruling. CBP has ceased assessment of IEEPA-based duties. However, other tariffs (Section 301, 232, baseline HTS) remain in effect. Future trade policy actions would need to use proper statutory authority.
Calculate Your Refund Free