Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down sweeping tariffs imposed last year under a statute designed for national emergencies, creating the potential for up to $175 billion in refunds. While more than 1,800 importers have filed reimbursement lawsuits since Feb. 1, 2025, industry groups warn that distributors, retailers and other downstream suppliers who are not the legal importer of record may be unable to recover money even if courts order refunds. Recovery will hinge on contractual arrangements and commercial negotiations, and some firms are already pressing importers for a share.
The Supreme Court's decision last Friday invalidated broad custom duties put in place under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act - a tool intended for national emergencies - but the ruling did not specify whether or how refunds should be distributed. Analysts and industry representatives note that this ambiguity leaves the potential pool of refunds vulnerable to allocation disputes.
Legal filings show that more than 1,800 importers - a group that includes major firms such as Costco, BorgWarner and Goodyear - have sought tariff reimbursement since Feb. 1, 2025. Those suits seek to recover duties paid under the now-reversed measures. Yet a significant number of companies involved in the supply chain may be unable to bring their own claims if they are not legally designated as the importer of record on shipping paperwork.
The International Chamber of Commerce has cautioned that companies lacking importer status - typically distributors, downstream suppliers and some retailers - may be legally barred from claiming refunds even if they contributed to paying tariffs. "It will require, I think, a lot of goodwill on the part of businesses to find a way through this otherwise you’re probably end up with quite a large degree of litigation between companies," Andrew Wilson, deputy secretary general of the ICC, said.
DISTRIBUTORS HAVE SENT IMPORTERS WARNING LETTERS
In response to the risk of being left out of any reimbursement, some distributors and retailers have begun pressing importers directly. According to Vinicius Adam, a trade attorney who has brought five cases on behalf of importers seeking refunds paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, downstream firms are sending formal legal notices to importers threatening to stop doing business if they are not compensated for having shared the tariff burden.
Adam said the notices take different legal and contractual tacks. Some downstream companies contend that their contracts entitle them to recover money; others assert that importers should not retain refunds because those importers relied on distributors to help defray the tariff payments. "(Distributors and retailers) are sending legal documents in the hope that some importers will sign," Adam said. He added that some companies view it as simply unfair for importers to keep all the money.
Adam noted that recovery of funds ultimately depends on the specific contract language between parties. He also said that, so far, none of the entities that are not importers of record have filed lawsuits seeking a direct refund. That claim could not be independently verified. Adam argued that the prospect of importers losing business relationships - rather than litigation - may be a more effective lever for companies seeking a share of any refunds.
Not all affected firms are prepared to pursue independent legal action, however. Amrita Bhasin, chief executive officer of Sowita - a logistics firm that works with retailers and consumer product companies on overstock inventory - said the company raised prices during the tariff period but would probably not initiate its own litigation to chase refunds.
"It’s not just the financial inconvenience, it’s the inconvenience of everything else," Bhasin said, explaining that as a small startup the effort required for messaging, compliance and customer communication would "cost a lot of money, energy and time, as well as stress." For some smaller logistics providers and retailers, the administrative burden of mounting legal claims may outweigh any potential recovery.
Where refunds are ordered and where they ultimately flow will depend on judicial rulings, the contractual arrangements among supply-chain participants, and the degree to which companies negotiate or litigate to reallocate funds. Until those processes play out, distributors, retailers and other downstream suppliers without importer-of-record status may face significant uncertainty about whether they will receive compensation for tariffs they helped pay.
Contextual note: The Supreme Court decision leaves distribution of any refunds unresolved; affected parties are pursuing a mix of litigation and commercial negotiations to secure a share of potential reimbursements.