Supreme Court ruling leaves $175 billion from IEEPA tariffs in limbo, supreme doubts the money will reach consumers

Few households were banking on a tariff rebate check from the White House, but it’s looking even less likely now following last week’s Supreme Court decision. The ruling has put some $175 billion of IEEPA collections at risk and forced Treasury and trade officials to warn that refunds — and any consumer relief tied to them — could be delayed or may never arrive.

Friday ruling: Trump could not use IEEPA to levy duties and the Oval Office scrambled for new legal footing

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday held that President Trump could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy duties on trading partners. That finding — that the Oval Office’s use of the IEEPA to introduce sweeping global tariffs was unlawful — prompted a weekend of updates from the Oval Office as it scrambled to find new legal footing to continue collecting import duties. The White House has a number of options for continuing to generate tariff revenue, but the funds initially collected under the IEEPA are now in dispute.

IEEPA tariff timeline: China in February 2025, then Canada and Mexico, and April’s "Liberation Day" duties

IEEPA tariffs were initially imposed on China in February 2025 and, a month later, were imposed on Canada and Mexico. April’s "Liberation Day" tariffs also came under the IEEPA authority. Those actions form the core of the collections now challenged after the court’s ruling.

How large the refund exposure is: economists’ estimates and Penn Wharton’s calculations

Economists have suggested roughly $175 billion could be locked up in litigation for refunds. The latest analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania projects up to $175 billion in potential refunds, reflecting cumulative IEEPA collections of roughly $164. 7 billion by January 2026, with collections running at about $500 million per day. Precisely how much the American people are missing out on is still up for debate, because IEEPA funds will need to be separated from customs duties and levies already in place under previous and new trading agreements.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s warning and the trade court route

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking at the Economic Club of Dallas after the ruling, said the Supreme Court had not ruled on how the funds generated under the IEEPA should be handled, meaning that decision will be pushed back to international trade courts. He told the audience: "My sense is that could be dragged out for weeks, months, years, so … we’ll see what happens there. " Bessent added that alternative legal routes such as Section 232 (a national security justification) or Section 301 (unfair trade practices) mean tariff revenue generation won’t drop or slow, but on the IEEPA revenues he said plainly: "I got a feeling the American people won’t see it. " The Treasury secretary also admitted the funds are unlikely to ever see the light of day for consumers.

White House response, trade representative comments and debate over who would get refunds

Other members of the Trump team expressed similar views. In an interview on Sunday, U. S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer was asked if the White House will fight efforts to seek compensation or pay out refunds. Greer said: "So it’s a matter for the courts, " and added, "They created the situation, and we’ll follow whatever they say to do. " Optimists have suggested that any refunds could act as an economic stimulus because U. S. importers would be the entities receiving the cash influx, and consumers might hope for lower prices if corporations passed the cash on.

UBS chief economist Paul Donovan told clients the idea that businesses will rush to lower prices may be naive: "Tariff rebates will increase the U. S. fiscal deficit, and act as a fiscal stimulus. Any rebates will be paid to U. S. importers (as they are the ones who made payments to the U. S. Treasury). With new tariffs coming in, it seems unlikely anyone will rush to lower prices to their customers. " The provided article text ends mid-sentence with the fragment "What businesses may be able to" and is unclear in the provided context.