Economy|Trade WarTariff refunds could take years amid US Supreme Court ruling, experts warnAt least 1,000 companies have already sued the administration of United States President Donald Trump. Legal experts argue a higher burden will be on small businesses
The United States Supreme Court has ruled against the administration's imposition of global tariffs, originally enacted under the presidency of Donald Trump. This decision, rendered by a 6–3 vote, determined that the use of the International Emergency…
The United States Supreme Court has ruled against the administration's imposition of global tariffs, originally enacted under the presidency of Donald Trump. This decision, rendered by a 6–3 vote, determined that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded presidential authority.
The Supreme Court did not provide guidance on the process for refunding the approximately $175 billion collected through these tariffs. Legal experts anticipate that the Court of International Trade will now manage the refund process. More than 1,000 lawsuits have been initiated by importers seeking refunds, with additional cases expected. It is likely that importers will need to apply for refunds individually, a process that may disproportionately affect smaller businesses.
Professor Greg Shaffer from Georgetown University noted that obtaining refunds could be a complex and costly process, potentially deterring smaller importers from pursuing claims.
Despite the ruling, other tariffs remain in place. President Trump previously invoked Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act to impose tariffs on various sectors, including steel and aluminum. Additionally, Trump announced plans to impose a 10 percent global tariff for 150 days under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This statute enables the president to impose duties of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days related to significant balance of payments issues, without requiring investigations or procedural limits.
This decision, rendered by a 6–3 vote, determined that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded presidential authority.
The administration may also utilize Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 for imposing tariffs in response to unfair trade practices, particularly with respect to China. This approach has been historically used and offers the president significant discretion.
Legal and Congressional Considerations
Professor Raj Bhala from The University of Kansas School of Law highlighted additional legal avenues available to the president, such as Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows for a 50 percent tariff to counter discriminatory trade practices.
The Supreme Court's ruling has prompted discussions within Congress concerning the scope of executive trade authority. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the need for clear congressional authorization for tariff imposition. This has led to increased pressure on Congress to define the boundaries of executive power in trade matters.
Congress may need to intervene to address the repayment of funds collected through tariffs. This could involve reallocating funds and establishing a mechanism for repayment, a process expected to be complex and protracted.
Based on reporting by Al Jazeera.