US may be required to pay more than €110 billion in tariff reimbursements after court dismisses Trump-era postponement

Billions in Tariffs Face Uncertain Future After Supreme Court Ruling

Tariffs totaling over $130 billion (€111 billion)—and possibly as much as $175 billion (€150 billion) by some estimates—are now in question after a US appeals court accelerated the process for determining refunds. This follows a pivotal Supreme Court decision that struck down former President Donald Trump’s trade actions.

On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington swiftly sent the case back to the US Court of International Trade (CIT), denying the Justice Department’s request for a delay of up to four months to consider its next steps.

The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision on February 20, ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, thereby overturning broad duties implemented in 2025.

These tariffs included a 10% “reciprocal” base rate on goods from nearly all US trading partners, higher tariffs based on trade imbalances, and targeted duties such as 25% on select imports from Canada and Mexico and 10% on Chinese goods.

The reciprocal tariffs under IEEPA were quickly rescinded, with collections ending as of February 24.

However, the Supreme Court did not specify how refunds should be handled, leaving the CIT to determine the process for potentially massive repayments, including whether interest should be paid.

Related Articles

Businesses Prepare for Complicated Refund Claims as Legal Battles Intensify

The Supreme Court’s decision has triggered an unprecedented surge in lawsuits. Nearly 2,000 importers have already filed claims with the CIT, many using “tag-along” actions to transfer pending motions between courts and protect their rights before deadlines expire.

US customs regulations generally give importers 180 days after the finalization of entries to challenge paid duties. The initial legal challenge was brought by small businesses, including the educational toy maker Learning Resources.

A coalition of small importers urged the Federal Circuit to speed up the process so relief could begin quickly. Major corporations such as FedEx, Revlon, Costco, and Reebok have since joined the litigation, along with hundreds of smaller companies.

Attorneys report a flurry of activity as businesses rush to preserve their claims, with many entries already finalized, adding to the complexity.

The CIT now faces the task of creating a framework to manage what could become the largest tariff refund operation in US history.

Refund Process Faces Delays and Uncertainty

The US government has previously indicated that it would issue refunds if the tariffs were overturned, but former President Trump has cautioned that the process could drag on for years—potentially up to five—due to ongoing litigation.

Any delays could result in significant interest costs for the US Treasury, though the exact timeline remains unclear. For affected companies, successful claims could provide much-needed cash flow relief after paying duties that were often not passed on to customers.

Nonetheless, the refund process is expected to be lengthy and contentious, requiring careful coordination on documentation and distribution.

EU Exporters See Indirect Benefits, But No Direct Compensation

For the European Union, the US Supreme Court’s decision and the subsequent appeals court order offer indirect relief but no direct financial restitution.

EU exports were subject to the now-overturned reciprocal IEEPA tariffs, which increased costs for American buyers of European machinery, chemicals, vehicles, luxury goods, and more.

With these tariffs now void, EU exporters are immediately freed from this burden. However, only US importers who paid the duties are eligible for refunds—EU companies, governments, or suppliers will not receive direct payments from the US Treasury.

European businesses that absorbed costs or lost sales during the tariff period have no legal claim to US refunds. Any benefit would depend on US importers choosing to pass on savings through lower prices or improved terms.

Overall, the EU has responded with cautious optimism. European Commission officials have welcomed the Supreme Court’s affirmation of legal checks and balances, while emphasizing the need for stability and clarity in transatlantic trade.

The European Parliament’s research service has noted the ruling’s silence on refunds but highlighted its broader significance. Still, new challenges have emerged.

Within hours of the Supreme Court’s decision, the US administration imposed a new 10% tariff on imports from all countries under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, with the possibility of raising it to 15% for a 150-day period.

Certain sectors, such as civil aviation, were granted exemptions. The EU has paused ratification of a recently negotiated EU-US trade agreement in response to these developments, with calls for renegotiation and clarification as needed.

European trading partners are closely watching how the CIT’s refund proceedings might affect US import demand and whether new tariff authorities could lead to further disputes.

While the end of the IEEPA tariffs offers some relief, the overall outlook remains uncertain and volatile.

With no mechanism for direct refunds to EU entities, European exporters must navigate ongoing policy changes through diplomacy and adaptation.