The Supreme Court killed one tariff regime. Two replacements followed, Washington is refunding about $166 billion, and new duties on Canada and a tariff adjustment for robotics imports are now in play.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on February 20, 2026, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act never let presidents impose tariffs. Trump signed a replacement 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 within hours. That tariff expired in July and was replaced by Section 301 forced-labor duties, which the trade court is still weighing.
The Court of International Trade reviewed refund progress at a closed conference on October 27 and ordered another update by November 10. After deferring robotics and machinery tariffs on October 28, Trump issued a document on November 2 adjusting those imports under Section 232 and Section 301 without detailing duty levels. A change effective October 30 altered the 50% Section 338 duties on some Canadian goods, adding about 100 tariff lines.
Importers seeking refunds of $166 billion in voided tariffs face a slow process, new litigation, and an expected government appeal.
Guess first
US tariffs hit $31bn in one month. After the Supreme Court ruling, what did June bring in?
Customs duties the Treasury took in each month, after refunds, March 2015 to September 2026.
-$40bn-$20bn$0bn$20bn$40bn20202025Oct 2025: $31.4bn, top since 2015Feb 2026: Supreme Court ruling-$25.6bn
June 2026: -$25.6bn. Minus $25.6bn: $49.2bn refunded, $23.6bn taken in. Also below zero in May (minus $0.04bn) and July (minus $8.5bn); back above zero in August ($12.8bn) and September ($5.9bn).
US tariffs hit $31bn in one month. After the Supreme Court ruling, what did June bring in? Notes and the latest months; 139 points from Mar 2015 to Sep 2026 at the source.
Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.
No questions yet — be the first to ask.
Key Indicators
$115B
IEEPA refunds issued
Amount Customs has repaid through its CAPE refund system, per Treasury data through September 2026. About 69% of the $166 billion the Supreme Court struck down. As of October 2, CBP had accepted $136.6 billion in refund claims for processing.
Voices
Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.
Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.
42 events
Latest: November 2nd, 2026 · 1 week ago
Showing 8 of 42
JK to step
Tap a bar to jump to that date
Jump to
November 2026
Trump Adjusts Robotics and Machinery Imports Under Trade Authorities
LatestPolicy Shift
The president issued a document adjusting imports of robotics, industrial machinery and their parts and components, modifying the tariff schedule under Section 232 and Section 301. The notice did not detail specific duty or quota changes.
October 2026
Section 338 Duties on Some Canadian Goods Change
Policy Shift
Under a October 23 presidential proclamation, CBP removed certain products from the additional 50% Section 338 duty on Canadian-origin goods. It added about 100 HTS classifications under HTSUS 9903.03.14.
Trump Defers Robotics and Industrial Machinery Tariffs for Trade Talks
Policy Shift
Trump found that imported robotics and industrial machinery threaten national security under a Section 232 probe, but deferred tariffs and ordered further negotiations. He requested a progress report within 180 days.
Trade Court Reviews CAPE Refund Progress, Orders Update by November 10
Legal Decision
The court held a closed conference on the CAPE refund system after a October 26 declaration from CBP's Brandon Lord. It ordered the government to file a further update by November 10 and said individual plaintiffs can file IEEPA refund claims through CAPE Phase 3.
Government Seeks Extension in Lead IEEPA Refund Case
Court Filing
The government moved for more time to file a proposed scheduling order in Freestyle World v. United States. Judge Richard Eaton granted the consent motion.
Importers Move for CAPE Phase 4 for Type 03 Entries
Court Filing
Aditya Birla Chemicals and Pack Perfect asked the trade court to order a fourth CAPE phase for Type 03 entries subject to IEEPA tariffs. National Seafood Association separately asked for refunds on those entries while keeping antidumping and countervailing duty liability in place.
Court Certifies Class of Importers Awaiting IEEPA Refunds
Legal Decision
Judge Richard Eaton certified a class of all importers who paid IEEPA duties and had not filed their own refund suits. Roughly 4,000 lawsuits covering about 7,000 importers remain pending; DOJ is expected to appeal the certification.
Judges Seek New Briefing on Forced-Labor Tariffs
Legal Decision
After the September 30 argument, the three-judge trade court panel asked for new briefing in the Section 301 forced-labor case. No ruling has issued.
CAPE Phase 3 Launches for Finally Liquidated Shipments
Administrative Action
CBP began processing refunds for finally liquidated entries under Phase 3 of its CAPE system, carrying out the court-ordered reliquidations. Smaller importers, wary of lingering legal questions, continued filing individual suits.
CBP Reports $136.6 Billion in Refund Claims Accepted
Financial Impact
In an October 6 court filing, CBP said it had accepted about $136.6 billion in refund claims as of October 2, with about $126 billion certified and sent to Treasury. Phase 3 is open only to importers that sued.
Amazon Tariff Refund Cases Sent to Multidistrict Litigation
Legal Decision
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sent federal consumer class actions over tariff refunds obtained by Amazon to an MDL in the Washington District of Washington (In re Amazon Tariff Litigation, MDL 3179).
DOJ Appeals Order Extending Refunds to Finally Liquidated Entries
Legal Decision
The Justice Department appealed the trade court's widening of its refund order to cover finally liquidated entries. DOJ argues the court lacks jurisdiction to order universal refunds and that relief should reach only parties that sued.
Democrats Ask GAO to Audit CBP Tariff Refund Process
Congressional Action
Senator Raphael Warnock and colleagues asked the Government Accountability Office to audit CBP's refund process. They cited about $100 billion refunded of $166 billion as of August, and questioned whether consumers benefited.
September 2026
Trade Court Hears Section 301 Tariff Challenge
Legal Decision
A three-judge panel heard argument in consolidated challenges to the Section 301 forced-labor tariffs on imports from 60 economies. Plaintiffs argue the law doesn't authorize tariffs of this breadth; no decision has issued.
Refund Pace Tapers; August First Net-Positive Month Since April
Financial Impact
Treasury data showed refunds of $10.5 billion in August against $23.3 billion in collections, the first month since April in which revenue exceeded repayments. Total refunds reached about $115 billion since May.
August 2026
CBP Delays CAPE Phase 3 Expansion
Administrative Action
CBP trade chief Brandon Lord told the Court of International Trade the agency had 'temporarily delayed' rolling out the refund-system update for shipments more than 90 days past liquidation.
CBP Reports $100 Billion in IEEPA Refunds Issued
Financial Impact
The administration said it had refunded about $100 billion of the $166 billion collected under the invalidated IEEPA tariffs, with roughly $29 billion still under review and $1.6 billion stalled for missing bank details.
July 2026
Section 122 Tariff Expires, Section 301 Forced-Labor Tariffs Take Its Place
Policy Shift
Trump's 10% global tariff expired after its 150-day statutory limit. The administration immediately replaced it with new Section 301 tariffs of 10%-12.5% on goods from about 60 countries tied to forced-labor enforcement.
Judge Orders Reliquidation for 3,700 Importers
Legal Decision
Judge Richard Eaton ordered CBP to reliquidate the finally liquidated entries of plaintiffs in roughly 3,700 pending IEEPA refund cases, answering the agency's claim that it lacked authority to reopen those entries on its own.
June 2026
Federal Circuit Stays Section 122 Injunction
Legal Decision
The appeals court paused the trade court's ruling against the Section 122 tariff, finding the government had a reasonable chance of winning on appeal. CBP kept collecting the duties until the tariff expired.
May 2026
Trade Court Strikes Down Section 122 Global Tariff
Legal Decision
The Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 in Oregon v. Trump and Burlap & Barrel v. Trump that Trump's 10% Section 122 tariff exceeded his authority, finding the economic conditions did not meet the law's balance-of-payments requirement. Relief applied only to the named plaintiffs.
April 2026
CBP Opens CAPE Refund Portal, Phase 1
Administrative Action
Customs launched the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system inside its ACE portal, letting importers file for IEEPA tariff refunds electronically.
March 2026
Trade Court Extends Refund Ruling to Non-Litigants
Legal Decision
The Court of International Trade ruled that importers who never filed suit are still entitled to refunds under the Learning Resources decision, widening the pool of eligible companies.
January 2026
Supreme Court Begins Recess Without Issuing Ruling
Legal Milestone
Court entered four-week recess without deciding IEEPA tariff cases, extending market uncertainty. Decision now expected in February at earliest.
Tariff Collections Reach $150 Billion Milestone
Financial Impact
CBP data shows IEEPA tariff collections approaching $150 billion, up from $133.5 billion in mid-December, as duties continue accumulating pending Supreme Court decision.
CBP Announces Mandatory Electronic Refund System
Administrative Action
Customs published interim rule requiring all tariff refunds be issued electronically via ACH starting February 6, 2026, eliminating paper checks. Move seen as preparation for potential mass IEEPA refunds.
2026
DOJ Confirms Refunds Would Apply to All IEEPA Tariffs
Legal Clarification
Justice Department clarified that if Supreme Court strikes down tariffs, refunds will extend beyond cases directly challenged to all duties imposed under IEEPA authority, including those on Brazil, India, and dozens of other countries.
December 2025
CIT Issues Administrative Stay on New Cases
Procedural Order
Court stayed 700+ protective lawsuits filed by importers, holding them pending Supreme Court decision.
CIT Clarifies Refund Authority and Statute of Limitations
Legal Decision
Court ruled it has power to order refunds of unlawful duties and will retain jurisdiction for two-year limitations period.
November 2025
Supreme Court Hears Three Hours of Arguments
Oral Arguments
Justices grilled both sides in extended session. Court appeared skeptical of government's position, repeatedly asking where IEEPA explicitly authorizes tariffs.
September 2025
Supreme Court Grants Expedited Review
Legal Milestone
SCOTUS consolidated V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources cases, agreed to fast-track oral arguments.
CIT granted summary judgment to V.O.S. Selections, ruling IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. Government appealed immediately.
April 2025
Learning Resources Files Parallel Challenge
Litigation
Educational toy manufacturers sued in D.C. District Court challenging Liberation Day tariffs.
First Legal Challenge Filed
Litigation
V.O.S. Selections and four other small businesses sued in Court of International Trade, arguing IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs.
Liberation Day: Reciprocal Tariffs Announced
Executive Action
Trump announced sweeping reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries under IEEPA, citing trade deficits and unfair practices.
March 2025
Mexico and Canada Tariffs Implemented
Implementation
25% blanket tariffs on Mexico and Canada took effect after delay period expired.
February 2025
IEEPA Tariffs Officially Published
Legal Milestone
Federal Register publication triggered two-year statute of limitations for importers seeking refunds if courts rule tariffs unlawful.
China Tariffs Take Effect, Retaliation Begins
Implementation
10% tariffs on Chinese imports went live. China announced retaliatory duties.
Canada and Mexico Tariffs Postponed 30 Days
Policy Shift
Trump agreed to delay implementation after retaliatory measures threatened, but China tariffs proceeded.
Trump Declares National Emergencies, Orders IEEPA Tariffs
Executive Action
President signed three executive orders imposing 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, 10% on China, citing fentanyl trafficking as national security emergency.
Scenarios
1
Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs, $129B Refund Scramble Begins
Possible
Discussed by: Constitutional Accountability Center, Brennan Center for Justice, trade law analysts across major firms including Holland & Knight and Mayer Brown
The Court rules IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs, triggering the largest customs refund operation in U.S. history. Customs and Border Protection, already underfunded and understaffed, faces 301,000 importers demanding refunds totaling $129 billion. The process takes years, strains government finances, and vindicates congressional control over taxation. Trump could immediately reimpose similar tariffs using Section 232 national security authority or push Congress for legislation, but the precedent limiting emergency powers would stand.
2
Supreme Court Upholds Tariffs, Presidential Trade Power Expands Dramatically
Possible
Discussed by: Former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, government lawyers, analysts at PwC and Baker Tilly
The Court validates IEEPA as tariff authority, establishing that presidents can impose massive trade barriers by declaring emergencies without congressional approval. The $129 billion stays collected, importers lose refund hopes, and future presidents gain unprecedented economic leverage. Congressional trade authority effectively transfers to the executive branch. The ruling would encourage emergency declarations for policy goals—immigration, climate, industrial policy—backed by tariff threats.
Discussed by: Legal scholars observing oral arguments, constitutional law experts
The Court invalidates these specific tariffs on procedural or narrow statutory grounds without deciding whether IEEPA could ever authorize duties. Perhaps it rules the fentanyl and trade deficit rationales don't constitute the type of emergency IEEPA contemplated, or questions whether the proclamations met statutory requirements. This preserves future executive flexibility while blocking Trump's particular approach, but creates ongoing uncertainty about the limits of emergency economic powers.
4
Supreme Court Splits the Difference, Validates Some Tariffs But Not Others
Unlikely
Discussed by: Trade policy analysts, importers, law firms advising on refund strategies
The Court distinguishes between the targeted fentanyl tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada versus the sweeping Liberation Day reciprocal tariffs. It might uphold narrow emergency-linked duties while striking down broad economic tariffs, creating a messier refund situation where some importers get money back and others don't. This outcome would require extensive litigation to sort out which specific tariff lines survive and which fall, prolonging uncertainty for years.
5
Federal Circuit Upholds the Section 122 Ruling, Voiding a Second Tariff Authority
Uncertain
Resolves by Feb 1, 2027
Discussed by: Trade attorneys at Skadden and Barnes Richardson Colburn covering the appeal
The Federal Circuit could affirm the trade court's finding that Trump's Section 122 tariff never met the law's balance-of-payments requirement. Since Section 122 already expired and was replaced by Section 301 duties, an affirmance would mainly determine refunds for the plaintiffs in Oregon v. Trump rather than restart tariff collection.
6
Congress Curbs Presidential Tariff Power by Statute
Unlikely
Resolves by Jan 3, 2027
Discussed by: Sponsors of the Prevent Tariff Abuse Act (H.R. 407) and the Trade Review Act (S. 1272)
Two bills in Congress would require lawmakers to approve tariffs before they take effect, or bar presidents from using IEEPA for that purpose. Neither has passed either chamber, and Republican leadership has shown little appetite for handing back the authority Trump has used repeatedly this year.
7
CIT Strikes Down Section 301 Forced-Labor Tariffs
Possible
Resolves by Q1 2027
Discussed by: The three-judge CIT panel and plaintiffs in the consolidated challenge, including the State of Oregon
The Court of International Trade could rule that Section 301 doesn't authorize tariffs of this breadth based on forced-labor findings, after hearing argument September 30. A decision would follow briefs due October 16. An adverse ruling could be stayed pending appeal, as the Section 122 ruling was, leaving the duties in place while the Federal Circuit reviews.
8
Federal Circuit Reverses Class Certification, Refunds Slow
Possible
Resolves by Q2 2027
Discussed by: Court filings and trade attorneys quoted in POLITICO's Weekly Trade
DOJ is expected to appeal Judge Eaton's October 8 class certification, which the administration has called a 'universal injunction' beyond the court's authority. A reversal would send importers back to individual suits, extending the refund fight for years.
9
Trade Court Orders CAPE Phase 4 for Type 03 Entries
Uncertain
Resolves by End of 2026
Discussed by: Plaintiffs Aditya Birla Chemicals and Pack Perfect, plaintiff-intervenor National Seafood Association
The importers' October 19 motion asks the trade court to direct CBP to build a fourth refund phase for Type 03 entries. CBP already separates the IEEPA portion of those entries, which supports the request. The government's response will shape whether the court acts.
Historical Context
3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.
1 of 3
1930-1934
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930
During the Great Depression's onset, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act raising duties on over 20,000 imported goods to protect American industries. Trading partners retaliated with their own tariffs. World trade collapsed by 66% between 1929 and 1934, deepening the Depression. U.S. exports fell from $7 billion to $2.5 billion.
Then
Immediate retaliation from Canada, Mexico, Europe devastated export-dependent industries and farmers.
Now
Became the canonical example of protectionism's dangers, cited in every trade debate since. Led to decades of trade liberalization efforts.
Why this matters now
Trump's IEEPA tariffs triggered similar retaliatory threats from Canada, Mexico, and China. The scale—$129 billion collected—and breadth recall Smoot-Hawley's sweeping reach.
2 of 3
1952
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)
During the Korean War, President Truman seized steel mills to prevent a strike he claimed would jeopardize national defense. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that he lacked authority—neither Congress nor the Constitution granted him power to seize private property, even in wartime emergency. Justice Jackson's concurrence established the foundational framework for analyzing presidential power: it's strongest when Congress approves, weakest when Congress prohibits.
Then
Truman returned the mills to private ownership, and the steel strike proceeded.
Now
Created the Youngstown framework that courts still use to assess executive authority. Established that emergencies don't create power, they only occasion its exercise.
Why this matters now
The IEEPA case sits squarely in Youngstown's framework. Did Congress authorize tariffs when it passed IEEPA, or does the statute's silence mean prohibition? Courts apply Jackson's test.
3 of 3
2018-present
Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariffs (2018)
In his first term, Trump used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose 25% steel and 10% aluminum tariffs, claiming imports threatened national security. Unlike IEEPA, Section 232 explicitly authorizes tariffs. Trading partners protested but the authority was clear, so legal challenges failed. The tariffs remained in place through Biden's presidency.
Then
Steel and aluminum industries got protection, but manufacturers using these metals faced higher costs. Allies imposed retaliatory tariffs.
Now
Normalized using national security justifications for economic tariffs, setting precedent Trump expanded with IEEPA.
Why this matters now
Shows Trump had legal tariff tools available in Section 232. His choice to use IEEPA instead—a statute without explicit tariff authorization—is what created the constitutional crisis.
