Events
Jenny Speck to Speak at Lockton U.S. Energy Risk Summit
Partner Jenny Speck will speak at Lockton’s U.S. Energy Risk Summit on November 12, 2026, in Houston, Texas. The summit …
November 12, 2026
November 12, 2026 • 1-minute read
Downstream purchasers—distributors, retailers, or end consumers—are now asking if they can claim a share of about $170 billion in potential refunds after the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The Supreme Court held Feb. 20 that the statute doesn’t authorize tariffs—a revenue-raising measure historically within the province of Congress under the Import Clause and the Taxing and Spending Clause.
The decision had immediate practical consequences. US Customs and Border Protection had collected billions of dollars in tariffs before the ruling, yet the Supreme Court didn’t prescribe a specific remedy or direct refunds of tariffs already paid. Importers of record moved swiftly to recover, pursuing administrative relief from CBP and filing suit in the US Court of International Trade.
So can downstream purchasers share in those refunds on the theory that the importer of record passed on some or all of the tariff costs through higher prices? Drawing on decades of antitrust jurisprudence—principally the Supreme Court’s decisions in Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp and Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois—we explain why importers of record should retain any tariff refunds and why downstream parties face formidable legal and practical barriers to recovery.
This information is provided by Vinson & Elkins LLP for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended, nor should it be construed, as legal advice.
