It did change the legal landscape. But it did not end tariff uncertainty.
That was the key message from our recent webinar, After IEEPA: The New Tariff Landscape Explained, featuring international trade attorney Adams C. Lee of Harris Sliwoski. In the session, Adams walked through what the Court’s ruling means, why importers are scrambling to understand the refund process, and how the Trump administration appears to be shifting to other tariff tools rather than backing away from tariffs altogether.
Read on for highlights from the webinar, or watch the full recording here:
The Supreme Court's decision invalidated the tariffs that had been imposed under IEEPA, including:
That ruling was significant. But it did not wipe the slate clean.
As Adams explained, many other tariffs remain in effect, and the administration moved quickly to replace the invalidated IEEPA tariffs with another mechanism.
Almost immediately after the Court’s decision, the administration issued executive orders ending the IEEPA tariffs and shifting to tariffs under Section 122.
That replacement tariff came in at 10%, with some exceptions for categories such as USMCA-compliant goods and certain in-transit shipments. Adams also noted that the administration had suggested the rate could go to 15%, though no further formal action had been taken at the time of the webinar.
For businesses, this created a frustrating reality: even though IEEPA tariffs were struck down, tariff costs did not necessarily disappear. In many cases, they simply changed form.
Adams also pointed out an important detail about tariff “stacking,” or whether one tariff gets added on top of another. The Section 122 tariffs were not supposed to stack with Section 232 tariffs, such as those on steel and aluminum. But Section 301 tariffs, especially those tied to China, may still stack with Section 122.
That means importers cannot assume a single tariff program tells the whole story. The total duty impact may still depend on classification, country of origin, and which trade remedies apply to a given product.
Adams explained that Section 122 was designed for situations involving a serious balance-of-payments deficit or foreign exchange crisis. In his view, there are several reasons the current use of Section 122 could face legal challenges and more changes may still be ahead.
Section 122 tariffs are designed to be temporary—they can remain in effect for up to 150 days unless Congress approves an extension. While it’s possible the administration could try to restart the clock with a new round of Section 122 tariffs, Adams suggested it’s more likely we’ll see a shift toward new investigations under Sections 232 and 301, which provide a more durable legal pathway for imposing tariffs.
For many importers, the most urgent concern is not what new tariff may come next. It is this:
Can we get our IEEPA tariff money back?
The Supreme Court invalidated the tariffs, but it did not lay out a refund process. That means the answer depends heavily on what happens in the lower courts and how U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) handles administration.
According to Adams, the biggest issue is timing.
When an entry is filed, duties are collected, but the entry is not immediately finalized. There is a window in which the entry remains unliquidated, meaning it is still open in the customs system and can be corrected more easily. Once the entry is liquidated, it is legally finalized, and reversing that becomes more complicated.
That distinction matters because:
In the webinar, Adams explained that businesses are filing actions in the Court of International Trade (CIT) because they do not want to lose refund eligibility while waiting for CBP to establish a process.
CBP has reportedly said it can’t immediately issue refunds on such a massive scale without first building a workable system. Adams cited the agency’s description of the challenge: millions of entries, hundreds of thousands of importers, and billions of dollars in duties collected. The agency also indicated that sorting IEEPA duties from other tariffs may involve significant manual work.
Rather than wait passively for a government solution, companies should be organizing their data and working closely with their customs brokers now.
Here are the main steps he recommended:
Importers should identify which entries were subject to IEEPA tariffs. Brokers should be able to help generate this list, including the relevant HTS codes, entry numbers, entry dates, entered values, and the amount of IEEPA duties paid.
This is critical. Refund options may differ depending on the liquidation status of each entry. If an entry is still open (generally if it has been less than 314 days after entry date), there may be more administrative options available.
Adams discussed possible use of liquidation extensions and post summary corrections (PSCs) for unliquidated entries. A PSC is a way to correct an entry after filing but before liquidation. It remains unclear how broadly CBP will allow these in response to the Supreme Court ruling, but importers should understand the option and discuss it with their broker.
For liquidated entries, importers generally have a six-month window to file a protest with CBP. If companies miss that window, they may lose an important avenue for preserving their rights.
Some importers are filing actions in the Court of International Trade primarily as a protective step. Adams described this as a way to preserve refund rights in case administrative solutions move too slowly or fail to cover liquidated entries.
This matters more than many companies realize. The party eligible to seek a refund is generally the importer of record listed on the customs entry—not necessarily the downstream customer or another party in the supply chain.
CBP has moved away from paper checks in many situations. Adams urged importers to confirm that they are properly set up in the customs system to receive refunds electronically.
Tariff uncertainty is not going away anytime soon. At the same time, enforcement risk is rising.
CBP is paying close attention to classification, valuation, and country of origin—especially in transactions where numbers appear too low to reflect commercial reality. Adams mentioned Incoterms DDP arrangements as one area drawing attention, particularly when a foreign supplier claims responsibility for duties but declared values raise red flags.
This is exactly the kind of environment where small compliance mistakes can become expensive problems.
Shipping Solutions offers a suite of compliance tools designed to help importers navigate today’s challenges. Our Product Classification Software and Import Controls Software help you determine the correct duty rates for your products and stay aligned with current regulations. And with our Landed Cost Calculator, you can see the true cost of importing your goods—including duties, fees, and other expenses—and even compare costs across up to five different source countries to make smarter sourcing decisions. Learn more and request a free trial of these tools here.
And if you still have questions about how the most recent tariff changes may affect your business, be sure to watch the full webinar recording. The session concluded with an in-depth Q&A that addresses many of the practical concerns importers are facing right now.
Like what you read? Subscribe today to the International Trade Blog to get the latest news and tips for exporters and importers delivered to your inbox.