After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the president lacked authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a far more complicated question has emerged: What happens to the roughly $130–170 billion already collected?

Will the Trump administration refund the money, and how will the political and legal dispute ultimately unfold?

Experts say that while the institutional contest between the executive branch and the Supreme Court may have settled with the ruling, a new and potentially longer battle – between the government and tariff payers – is only just beginning.

According to legal observers, the administration is likely to deploy various procedural tools to delay repayments and raise the threshold for eligibility. In the end, large corporations capable of bearing prolonged litigation costs may stand the best chance of recovering funds.

Why Court ruled tariffs unlawful but stayed silent on refunds

In its decision, the Supreme Court focused narrowly on the constitutional and statutory question: whether the IEEPA authorized the president to levy tariffs. It did not address restitution, set a refund mechanism, establish a timeline or designate an implementing authority – leaving substantial uncertainty.

Experts say this restraint was deliberate.

A Chinese lawyer specializing in international trade disputes, who requested anonymity, told CGTN that the ruling reflected a calibrated institutional balance.

"The Supreme Court cleverly confined its role to resolving the legal characterization issue," the lawyer said. "By limiting itself to determining legality, it avoided being entangled in complicated political bargaining."

Sun Taiyi, a professor at Christopher Newport University, echoed this view. He said the Court consciously separated the determination of illegality from the design of remedies because the fiscal and administrative consequences are vast and complex.

He noted that the Court likely preferred to leave the technical details to lower courts, administrative processes, or even Congress. "The Court policed the boundary of presidential power," Sun said, "but consciously refrained from micromanaging the economic and political aftermath of that boundary-setting decision."

At the same time, the ruling appears to leave the executive branch room to maneuver, Sun observed. By declaring the tariffs unlawful but not mandating immediate repayment, the Court preserved flexibility for the administration to pursue alternative legal authorities, negotiate legislative solutions, or manage the transition gradually.

This dynamic may be linked to the composition of the Supreme Court. During his presidency, Trump appointed three justices, cementing a 6–3 conservative majority. Of the six justices who found the IEEPA tariffs unlawful, three were conservatives – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett – and three were liberals: Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Notably, Gorsuch and Barrett were both nominated by Trump.

Why Trump administration is reluctant to refund

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data released last December, tariffs imposed under IEEPA generated approximately $130 billion in revenue. Estimates from the University of Pennsylvania suggest the total could now exceed $175 billion.

More than 1,500 refund lawsuits have been filed, according to Bloomberg News. Hundreds of companies – including retail giant Costco – are seeking reimbursement. Some Democratic lawmakers have urged the administration to return the funds with interest.

Yet the administration has been cautious. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a CNN interview that the Supreme Court ruling did not address refunds and that the matter has been sent back to lower courts. Trump himself suggested the dispute could take "five years" to resolve.

Sun said the administration's delay reflects strategic and political considerations.

"Tariffs were not merely a trade instrument during Trump's presidency; they were a central pillar of his economic and diplomatic leverage," Sun said. "If the government were to promptly concede and issue full refunds, it would signal not only a legal defeat but a substantive retreat from a policy tool that has shaped negotiations with other trading partners."

Moreover, the administration appears to be seeking policy substitution. Immediately after the ruling, it invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose new tariffs – initially 10 percent globally, later signaling an increase to 15 percent – while also relying more heavily on Sections 301 and 232 authorities.

Section 122 provides temporary authority, up to 150 days, to impose tariffs to address balance-of-payments concerns.

"From the administration's perspective, this window offers time to stabilize tariff levels while transitioning to more durable statutory justifications," Sun said. "Delaying refunds helps preserve continuity and prevents immediate fiscal and political disruption."

Electoral timing also matters. With midterm elections approaching, a highly visible $130 billion refund could reshape political narratives.

"A sudden acknowledgment of unlawful collections and rapid repayment could be framed as administrative miscalculation or overreach," Sun said, potentially affecting Republican prospects in Congress.

What are the legal and practical challenges of refund?

Although the Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs were unlawful, that does not automatically mean the government must immediately return the money. According to Sun, declaring illegality is only the first step. Ordering repayment is a separate and more complex legal question.

The Court did not instruct the Treasury to refund funds, nor did it designate a payment mechanism or funding source. Under the U.S. system, federal spending requires appropriations authority. If existing customs statutes provide a refund pathway, payments could proceed under current law. But if a broad, automatic, across-the-board repayment were attempted – potentially covering hundreds of billions of dollars – congressional authorization may be required.

The government also faces three core questions: Who qualifies? How much should be refunded, including interest? And where does the money come from?

U.S. customs law is highly technical. Importers generally must have filed timely protests to preserve refund claims. Those who failed to do so may lose eligibility.

On the practical side, the challenge is enormous. Tariffs were collected entry by entry, across millions of transactions. Authorities would need to identify eligible claimants, verify payments, calculate principal and determine interest, a massive administrative undertaking.

Economists note that many importers passed tariff costs downstream to consumers and small businesses. Yet those downstream actors usually lack a direct legal mechanism to claim refunds, raising fairness concerns.

"Refunding is not simply a matter of writing checks," Sun said. "It requires navigating sovereign immunity, statutory refund procedures, retroactivity doctrine, and enormous administrative recalculation across the customs system – while managing substantial fiscal exposure for the federal government."

How will the battle unfold?

Most experts expect a legally technical and politically managed resolution – not a sweeping, immediate repayment.

The anonymous trade lawyer said the administration will likely use procedural tools to extend timelines and raise the threshold for recovery. In practice, large enterprises capable of absorbing prolonged litigation costs may highly likely obtain refunds.

Sun believes refunds will likely proceed through existing customs procedures. Importers that filed timely protests or joined litigation are in the strongest position to recover duties, possibly with statutory interest. Courts may treat the tariffs as invalid from inception for those plaintiffs while limiting relief to parties that preserved their claims.

"That would significantly narrow the universe of eligible refunds and reduce fiscal exposure, avoiding a blanket retroactive payout," Sun said.

To prevent courts from being overwhelmed, legal experts suggest that the U.S. Court of International Trade may adopt a "test case plus batch application" approach – selecting representative cases to clarify eligibility, calculation, and interest rules, then applying that framework to similar claims. Courts would define legal boundaries, while administrative agencies would design procedures and systems, jointly shaping the pace and scope of refunds.

Beyond technical and legal considerations, macroeconomic and diplomatic factors will also influence the endgame.

"If inflation pressures ease and alternative tariff authorities (such as Section 301 or 232) are used to maintain leverage," Sun said, "the administration may quietly allow refunds for litigants while reframing the broader policy as recalibrated rather than reversed."