The tariff environment facing U.S. manufacturers has been nothing short of seismic. Between Section 301 duties on Chinese imports, Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, and the sweeping reciprocal tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) beginning in early 2025, manufacturers have absorbed wave after wave of elevated import costs – with total IEEPA-related collections alone estimated at well over $100 billion before the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in February.
That ruling – holding in a 6-3 decision that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs – opened the door to potential refunds on a scale the industry has never seen: up to $175 billion, per a Penn Wharton Budget Model estimate. But the path to recovery is neither automatic nor simple. For manufacturing executives, the question is not just whether refunds are coming, but whether your organization is positioned to receive them.
What the Supreme Court ruling actually means for manufacturers
In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court held that tariff authority of significant economic and political magnitude requires explicit statutory delegation from Congress – and IEEPA does not provide it.
Despite invalidating 2025’s sweeping tariffs, importantly, the decision did not order immediate refunds. The Supreme Court left refund mechanics entirely to lower courts and administrative processes. That gap is where the real complexity lies. The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) is expected to establish a case management framework for refund claims, covering more than 2,000 lawsuits already filed, with interest accruing on unpaid amounts at an estimated $650 million per month. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has pivoted to imposing an up-to-15% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, while signaling it may contest the scope of refund obligations in court.
The bottom line for manufacturers: Refunds are legally plausible, but administratively uncertain and potentially years away without proactive steps.
When can manufacturers realistically expect refunds?
Timing depends on which category of duties is at issue and what mechanism a company uses to pursue recovery.
For IEEPA tariffs, the most likely path is court-ordered reliquidation through the CIT, under which CBP recalculates duties and issues refunds, typically with interest. Companies that filed protective actions at the CIT before the Supreme Court ruling are better positioned. For those who have not yet filed, the window may still be open depending on the scope of the CIT's implementation framework, but urgency is warranted. Entries subject to protest have a 180-day window from liquidation, while Post-Summary Corrections (PSCs) are available for unliquidated entries within 300 days.
For Section 301 exclusions, manufacturers may have separate refund or cost recovery opportunities. The USTR extended 178 product exclusions — covering categories including industrial equipment, semiconductors, batteries and solar manufacturing equipment — through Nov. 10, 2026, following the trade deal reached between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping in November 2025. In some cases these exclusions apply retroactively, allowing businesses to recover duties paid during qualifying periods. Separately, manufacturers that import goods later re-exported may be eligible for duty drawback – recovering up to 99% of duties paid on manufacturing inputs – a mechanism that remains largely underutilized across the sector.
Realistically, IEEPA refund disbursements are unlikely to materialize before late 2026 at the earliest, and for many companies, the timeline could extend well into 2027 or beyond, depending on how aggressively the administration contests the process and how quickly the CIT establishes administrative procedures.
How to expedite the process
Speed belongs to the prepared. Manufacturers that have systematically organized their import data will be the first to move when formal refund guidance is issued. Practically, that means:
- Conduct an immediate entry audit. Pull all customs entries subject to IEEPA, Section 301, or Section 232 tariffs from your Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) data. Categorize by liquidation status, tariff category and dollar exposure. Companies that have never done this are frequently surprised by the cumulative magnitude of duties paid and by classification patterns that reveal potential overpayments.
- Map your deadlines now. Protest and PSC windows run from entry liquidation, not from the Supreme Court ruling date. Entries that liquidated months ago may already be approaching expiration. Missing a deadline forfeits the recovery opportunity, regardless of legal merit.
- Engage customs counsel and trade advisors early. The refund process will almost certainly involve a combination of protests, PSCs, reliquidation orders and potentially litigation. Companies that have aligned trade counsel and customs compliance professionals in advance will be able to execute faster and with lower error rates when the CIT issues its implementation orders.
- Evaluate your HTSUS classifications. Tariff exposure is only recoverable if entries were accurately classified in the first place – and misclassification errors can cut both ways. A classification review may reveal both overpayment opportunities and compliance gaps that need to be corrected before pursuing refunds.
Best practices in tariff risk mitigation going forward
The post-IEEPA landscape has not restored certainty – it has substituted one form of tariff exposure for another. Section 122 tariffs of up to 15% are now in effect globally, stacked on top of existing Section 232 and Section 301 duties. Section 301 investigations have been announced against 15 countries and the EU. Manufacturers that treat the Supreme Court ruling as a relief event rather than a recalibration moment are underestimating the ongoing complexity.
- Build a dynamic tariff monitoring function. Trade policy is now moving faster than annual planning cycles can accommodate. Companies need real-time or near-real-time visibility into tariff rate changes, new exclusions and investigation announcements that affect their specific HTS codes and country-of-origin profiles. This is a board-level risk management function, not just a compliance task.
- Stress-test supply chains for multiple tariff scenarios. With Section 122 tariffs expiring by law after 150 days (by July 24, 2026, absent congressional action) and the administration signaling further escalation, manufacturers should model the financial impact of at least three scenarios: status quo, escalation toward prior IEEPA levels and partial de-escalation through new trade agreements.
- Revisit contracts and cost-sharing arrangements. Fixed-price supply agreements executed during periods of lower tariffs may now create asymmetric risk exposure. Force majeure, material adverse change and tariff pass-through provisions deserve a fresh review in light of both the new Section 122 regime and the ongoing uncertainty.
- Evaluate duty mitigation structures proactively. Foreign-trade zones, bonded warehouses, first-sale valuation strategies and tariff engineering through product reclassification or design changes can all reduce forward exposure – but they take time to implement and require legal and operational coordination. Companies that start now will have structural advantages over those waiting for the next policy shift to force the issue.
The strategic imperative
The Supreme Court’s February 2026 ruling changed the legal landscape, but it did not change the fundamental reality manufacturers have been navigating for the past two years: Tariff policy is a material financial risk that demands the same rigor as any other enterprise risk. The companies that will recover the most – both through potential refunds and through structural resilience – are those treating tariff management as a continuous, cross-functional discipline rather than a reactive compliance exercise.
The refunds may or may not come quickly. The next round of tariff actions almost certainly will.
Yvette Connor is a partner and risk advisory leader at CohnReznick.
