Supreme Court Tariffs Decision Could Cause Major Contract and Refund Disputes

The US Supreme Court’s review of President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump) is a consequential moment for companies engaged in global trade. According to an article by Snell & Wilmer, if the Court invalidates the tariffs, the resulting unwinding process could be rocky.

US Customs and Border Protection may be required to manage extensive refund claims, creating operational and contractual friction among counterparties who allocated tariff costs differently. The decision could transform both short-term recovery strategies and longer-term approaches to contract negotiation and compliance management.

The dispute concerns whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes unilateral tariff measures. Lower courts concluded that the statute permits regulating imports but not imposing tariffs.

The matter under consideration is only the reciprocal tariffs issued under this authority. Other tariffs imposed under Section 232 and Section 301 remain unaffected. Because the tariffs are applied broadly across trading partners, any reversal may affect a substantial volume of entries.

If the Court determines the tariffs were unlawful, tariff recovery will proceed through established administrative mechanisms. Post-Summary Corrections apply to entries that have not liquidated, whereas formal protests govern liquidated entries. These processes involve strict deadlines, and according to the article, agencies have signaled that automatic refunds are unlikely.

Identifying the correct importer of record will be essential to determining refund entitlement, particularly where commercial cost-allocation mechanisms differ from customs filings. Contract provisions addressing pricing adjustments, tariff pass-throughs, cost-sharing, or change-in-law concepts will frame many of the resulting disputes.

Lawyers evaluating exposure should note that refund claims may invite scrutiny of classification, valuation, and entry practices. If vulnerabilities exist, voluntary self-disclosures may mitigate enforcement risk.

Counsel can also help clients assess importer-of-record status, preserve refund rights, prepare documentation, and evaluate contract-based entitlement arguments. Thorough preparation can position companies to pursue refunds efficiently while managing compliance and dispute-avoidance concerns.