The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down a key portion of former President Donald Trump’s tariff regime has opened the door to a potentially complex and protracted refund process, leaving importers and businesses uncertain about if and when they will recover billions of dollars in duties they have already paid.

On Friday, the high court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the sweeping tariff authority used to impose broad tariffs on numerous imports, a decision with far-reaching economic and legal implications. The ruling did not, however, specify how the government must return the estimated $175 billion in tariff revenue collected under those authorities, creating a gap that importers and their lawyers now must navigate.

Experts emphasize that refunds are unlikely to be automatic or immediate. Rather than a simple reimbursement program, importers face a landscape where refunds will likely need to be pursued through formal legal actions and administrative procedures, beginning with the U.S. Court of International Trade and potentially stretching into years of litigation.

Trade lawyers caution that companies hoping to recoup duties may need to file individual protests or lawsuits to establish their eligibility, rather than seeing funds returned without action on their part. “We believe that the decisions create a refund opportunity for importers,” said one lawyer advising corporate clients, but added that “it won’t be automatic or immediate.”

This uncertainty has already prompted a wave of legal filings. According to recent reports, major corporations including wholesale giant Costco, cosmetics maker Revlon, and consumer brands across industries have filed suits seeking to secure their place in line for refunds, while smaller businesses are also preparing litigation to compel relief.

One of the central procedural challenges is that the Supreme Court’s ruling did not outline a clear mechanism for processing refunds, leaving questions about eligibility, timelines, and documentation requirements unanswered. Analysts expect this ambiguity could trigger disputes not only over when refunds are issued, but also over who is entitled to them — a matter complicated by contractual relationships and how tariffs were passed along in supply chains.

Industry associations and small business coalitions have called for a streamlined and transparent refund framework, arguing that administrative complexity could disproportionately harm smaller firms that lack the legal resources of large multinationals. Some legislators have introduced proposals in Congress to mandate automatic refunds within set periods, but such measures remain under debate and offer no guarantee of passage.

Treasury officials and analysts also warn that consumers who ultimately bore the cost of tariffs — through higher prices on goods — may not see direct compensation, since refunds typically flow first to the entity that paid the duty at the border. Experts note that without specific legislative guidance, retail consumers may find it difficult to trace and reclaim any portion of those cost increases.

Despite these hurdles, some trade law specialists advise companies to act quickly to preserve their rights to refunds by aligning protests with liquidation deadlines and preparing detailed documentation of duties paid. Firms and their advisers are also watching how the administration implements alternative tariff policies, including the use of conventional trade statutes that may have broader congressional backing.

In the markets, the ruling has generated mixed reactions: while immediate uncertainty has unsettled supply chain planning, the long-term dismantling of the IEEPA tariff authority is expected by some to reduce future volatility and ease trade frictions — even as the complicated refund process unfolds.

For now, what remains clear is that the billions collected in now-invalid tariffs will not simply be refunded on a timetable or without substantial legal and administrative effort, setting the stage for one of the most significant post-ruling import policy battles in recent U.S. economic history.