The Vision Council Responds to SCOTUS Tariff Ruling, Maps Out Potential Process for Refunds During a Webinar

By Staff

Wednesday, February 25, 2026 12:24 AM NEWARK, N.J.—Following the Supreme Court’s ruling last week that the President does not have the power to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), The Vision Council hosted a webinar yesterday updating its members and optical industry professionals on what is still unknown, how to prepare for potential new duties and offered insight on steps to take toward potential refunds. As of February 24, 2026, at 12:01 a.m., duties imposed under IEEPA are no longer being collected, according to Rick Van Arnam, regulatory affairs counsel for The Vision Council.

The 170-page opinion ruling revealed a vote of 6-3, with Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh dissenting, striking down the sweeping tariffs on imports that were initiated in 2025 under IEEPA, which have totaled an estimated $200 billion in collected duties.

Van Arnam began the webinar with confirmation that the SCOTUS ruling is limited to the tariffs imposed under IEEPA, noting that duties imposed under Section 301 (the China tariffs) or Section 232 (on products and product groups, most notable steel, aluminum and autos) are not impacted and will remain in place.

| | | | | Rick Van Arnam. |

“While Customs has in fact stopped collecting the IEEPA tariff, the Supreme Court's decision technically isn't final until 25 days after they issue the decision because they have to allow the losing party an opportunity to request a rehearing,” Van Arnam noted. “And it's only after that 25-day period ends that the Supreme Court will send its mandate saying ‘enforce our decision now.’”

Immediately following the Supreme Court decision last week, President Trump signed an executive order to impose a 10 percent global tariff under federal law known as Section 122, which he later vowed to increase to 15 percent but as of press time that increase has not been made official. The 10 percent global duty went into effect February 24 at 12:01 a.m. and will run through July 24, 2026. “This section allows the president to address serious balance-of-payments problems,” said Van Arnam. “There are definitely guardrails. First and foremost, under the statute, the president can only impose up to 15 percent duties, so the duty rate is capped at 15 percent. Furthermore, it's temporal in that these duties can only be imposed for 150 days, and at the end of the 150th day they expire unless Congress authorizes their continuance.”

Van Arnam told webinar attendees to expect considerable activity on the Section 301 front, as he anticipates the administration to utilize the Section 122 statute—which doesn’t require congressional approval—to impose 15 percent duties and use the 150-day lifetime to follow the required agency and procedural steps to swap in new Section 301 or Section 232 duties upon their expiration.

Van Arnam then highlighted a number of exemptions and interactions that largely mirror long-standing customs practice under IEEPA:

- In-transit exception: Goods loaded at the port of loading and in transit on the final mode of transit prior to entry on February 24 that are entered before 12:01 a.m. on February 28 are exempt from the new Section 122 duties.

Chapter 98 and Nairobi Protocol: Goods entered under Chapter 98 (with limited exceptions) remain exempt from Section 122 duties, as did certain low-vision products that qualify under the Nairobi Protocol—a development Van Arnam described as “good news” for accessibility-related imports.

Foreign trade zones (FTZs): Merchandise entering U.S. FTZs continues to receive “privileged foreign” status for duty purposes, the same treatment that applied under the IEEPA regime.

Stacking: Section 122 duties will stack with most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rates and with Section 301 tariffs (including the China 301 measures) and future Section 301 tariffs, but they will not stack with Section 232 duties.

Claiming Potential Refunds

Van Arnam said he expects a lot of litigation and administrative disputes. “You can expect court challenges to this,” he said, noting that how courts and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) handle refunds and liquidation will determine how successful importers are in recovering IEEPA-era duties paid before the Supreme Court ruling.

“You may have heard that the Supreme Court's decision was silent on the right to refunds; it didn't say yes or no,” said Van Arnam. “There are mechanisms by which, under customs law [in place for about 250 years] importers who have been assessed and paid an improper tariff or additional charge have a vehicle to get their money back.” He noted there may be additional customs guidance in the future that streamlines or complicates this, but there is an opportunity to claim refunds, and timing is critical because of liquidation.

Much of the process for claiming a refund or preparing for the potential litigation required for processing a refund will depend on the liquidation date. Import duties are initially estimated at entry and remain provisional until liquidation, when final duties are assessed. With the first IEEPA duties having been assessed on February 4, 2025, and a standard liquidation cycle of 314 days, some entries could have liquidated as early as December 15, 2025.

In the webinar, Van Arnam outlined the paths importers should consider seeking refunds of duties they believe were improperly collected under the voided IEEPA tariffs:

- Entries liquidating after the decision: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can provide automatic refunds when entries that liquidate after the decision are deemed to have been improperly assessed. If CBP does not act, Van Arnam recommends importers work with brokers to file Post-Summary Corrections (PSCs) for unliquidated entries, noting that brokers generally file PSCs for entries less than 300 days into the liquidation cycle. If an entry liquidates without corrective action, importers must file an administrative protest with CBP within 180 days of the liquidation date. If the protest is denied, the next stop is federal court.

Entries liquidated before the decision: Where entries already liquidated pre-decision, importers will typically need to sue at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) to recover improperly collected duties unless CBP or Congress provides contrary directions. That route is subject to a two-year statute of limitations for refund suits; Van Arnam recommended filing conservatively by February 1, 2027, to protect claims that would otherwise lapse. He also urged importers to file protests as a “belt-and-suspenders” move even if court litigation is anticipated.

Administrative and technical considerations: Importers should ensure they can receive electronic refunds from CBP and work closely with customs brokers to track liquidation dates and preserve remedies.

“The big takeaway here is you need to be mindful of these filing dates because unless Congress were to act and pass a law saying give everyone back their money, these are the ways that you would perfect your claim for duties that were improperly assessed,” said Van Arnam.

Impact on Trade Agreements

Van Arnam said The Vision Council has a received a lot of questions regarding what happens to international trade agreements, particularly those with specially negotiated duty rates like the European Union, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand. He emphasized that much of this is still unclear, but what we do know is that most of the 2025 deals that traded concessions for lower duties under the IEEPA tariff rates do not have independent legal force as they were issued via executive order, without treaties and were never approved by congress.

Based on the SCOTUS ruling, Van Arnam said he and The Vision Council will be keeping an eye on these trade agreements.

Broader Implications

The sudden policy shift—a Supreme Court ruling nullifying IEEPA tariffs followed by immediate use of a different statutory authority—has spawned disputes over the scope of presidential authority to impose tariffs, the interplay among different tariff authorities and CBP’s administrative handling of thousands of entries. The Department of Justice, Van Arnam noted, may contest refund claims in court, potentially seeking another high-court review.

While much is still unknown, and with policy changing rapidly, Van Arnam and The Vision Council said they will continue to monitor the news on trade and update members as more information becomes available.

This article was created using several editorial tools, that may include using AI as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.