Supreme Court IEEPA tariffs decision: What merchants and consumers should know as a ruling looms

Updated on January 29th, originally posted January 14th. We will be updating this article as more information come in. Additionally, updates will be available on our Trade and Tariff Hub. 

On January 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court released a new set of opinions, but they did not issue a decision on the closely watched case challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). While expectations were high following oral arguments in November 2025, the Court often holds decisions beyond anticipated dates, particularly in complex cases with broad economic and constitutional implications.

The absence of a ruling that day does not signal the outcome. Instead, it extends a period of uncertainty that has already prompted importers, merchants, and consumers to closely monitor legal and regulatory risk tied to tariff exposure.  The next potential date for a decision is February 20th, 2026. For the most up to date announcements follow our Trade and Tariff Hub. 

Overview of the Supreme Court case

The Supreme Court is reviewing consolidated challenges to tariffs imposed under IEEPA, a statute historically used to authorize economic sanctions during national emergencies. The challengers argue that IEEPA does not grant the executive branch authority to impose broad-based import tariffs and that doing so infringes on Congress’s constitutional power to levy taxes and duties.

Beyond the legal question of authority, the case carries practical significance because it addresses what happens to tariffs already paid if the Court determines they were unlawfully imposed. For merchants and importers, the decision is not only about future trade policy, it is about whether past costs can be recovered and how that recovery would work in practice.

Critically, for refunds to become viable, two things must occur: the Court must invalidate the tariffs, and it must leave open a mechanism (explicitly or implicitly) for refunds to be processed. Invalidating the tariffs alone does not automatically return money to importers.

Timeline of key events

• Early 2025: Tariffs imposed under IEEPA are challenged in federal court by importers and trade groups.

• May 29, 2025: A federal district court issues a preliminary injunction in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, finding that IEEPA likely does not authorize the tariffs.

• Summer–Fall 2025: The case is expedited to the Supreme Court, reflecting its constitutional and economic significance.

• November 5, 2025: The Supreme Court hears oral arguments, with questioning focused heavily on statutory limits and separation of powers.

• Late November 2025: A group of Importers file refund-related actions at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), signaling preparation for potential tariff invalidation.

• November–December 2025: Importers of record begin filing protective actions at the CIT to preserve refund rights as entries approach liquidation.

• January 14, 2026: The Supreme Court was scheduled to release opinions; however the IEEPA tariffs decision remains pending as of today.

• February 20th, 2026: The next potential date for a decision

Why invalidating the tariffs is only the first step

A Supreme Court ruling that invalidates the IEEPA tariffs would be consequential, but it would not, by itself, determine how refunds occur. Refunds depend on legal and procedural mechanisms that govern customs entries, liquidation, and agency authority.

In practice, tariff refunds are not automatic. They are tied to the status of entries and the authority of courts or agencies to order liquidation or reliquidation. That is why much of the attention surrounding the case has shifted from whether the tariffs will be struck down to how relief would actually be administered.

Possible refund pathways

If the Supreme Court invalidates the tariffs, three potential refund pathways may emerge.

• The first is judicial. The Court could theoretically order refunds directly, but this outcome is considered unlikely. The Supreme Court typically resolves legal questions rather than overseeing administrative remedies, especially at the scale involved here.
• The second is legislative. The Court could rule that the tariffs were unlawful but leave it to Congress to authorize or structure refunds. While possible, this path would introduce political uncertainty and likely delay, as any legislative solution would require negotiation and formal enactment.
• The third, and most practically viable, path is administrative. In this scenario, the ruling would require federal agencies such as the Treasury Department and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to outline procedures for issuing refunds. This would likely rely on existing customs frameworks, including liquidation and reliquidation processes, rather than a brand-new system.

Separately, lower courts such as the Court of International Trade could regain authority to order reliquidation and refunds once the Supreme Court resolves the underlying legal question.

What protective actions at the Court of International Trade really mean

The recent wave of filings at the Court of International Trade has raised questions about whether importers must take action now to qualify for refunds later. These filings are best understood as protective and not mandatory.

Importers of record are filing protective actions because customs law operates on strict timelines. Once an entry liquidates, the window to challenge or adjust it narrows significantly. Filing early preserves legal options while the Supreme Court’s decision remains uncertain.

Importantly, filing a protective action is not a prerequisite for receiving a refund if one becomes available. It is a precautionary step taken by importers seeking to ensure they have done everything possible to preserve their rights under the law.

Impact on merchants

For merchants, the ruling has both retrospective and forward-looking implications. If refunds become available, merchants may be able to recover tariff costs that have already been absorbed into margins, pricing, or landed cost calculations. However, any refund process is likely to be slow and documentation-heavy, particularly for merchants with high entry volumes or complex importer-of-record structures.

Merchants should also be aware that the party legally entitled to a refund is the importer of record. In cases where brands rely on intermediaries, marketplaces, or logistics partners, coordination may be required to access any relief.

Looking ahead, the case underscores a broader lesson: tariff exposure is not static. Merchants expanding internationally or sourcing globally need ongoing visibility into landed costs, compliance accuracy, and trade risk not just during moments of regulatory change, but as a core part of their operating strategy.

Impact on consumers

Consumers are unlikely to see immediate price changes as a result of the ruling. Even if refunds are authorized, they would apply to past imports rather than future purchases. Retail pricing decisions tend to adjust over time, shaped by inventory cycles, promotional calendars, and competitive dynamics.

That said, sustained relief from unlawful tariffs could improve pricing stability in the long term. Reduced uncertainty around import costs gives merchants greater confidence to maintain promotions, expand cross-border offerings, and reduce friction at checkout all of which ultimately benefit consumers.

What to watch next

As the Supreme Court did not issue a ruling on January 19th, the next step is knowing when they will announce the next round of decisions (potentially on 2/20). The most important details will be in how the decision is written. Merchants should watch for signals around refund authority, agency responsibilities, and whether lower courts are empowered to resume paused cases.

Even with a decision in hand, the practical consequences will likely unfold over weeks or months through agency guidance, court actions, and operational implementation. The ruling may be the headline but the real impact will be determined by what comes next.