Law, disrupted

Tariffs Struck Down: What’s Next and How do Companies Get Refunds?


Listen Later

John is joined by Dennis H. Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Salt Lake City office, and Fritz Scanlon, of counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office. They discuss the recent Supreme Court decision invalidating all tariffs President Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). IEEPA tariffs had generated an estimated $160 billion in revenue and were central to the administration’s tariff policy.

The administration justified these tariffs based on declared national emergencies, including fentanyl trafficking and persistent trade deficits. The Court did not rule on whether those circumstances constituted true emergencies. Instead, the Court held that the tariffs were invalid because the Constitution assigns all taxing authority to Congress, and the IEEPA did not expressly grant the President the power to impose tariffs.

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the administration has now turned to other statutes, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 per cent for 150 days to address balance-of-payments concerns. Other tools, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, permit product-specific tariffs tied to national security findings, but require administrative investigations and procedural safeguards. These mechanisms provide less unilateral flexibility than IEEPA had afforded.

John, Dennis, and Fritz also discuss the prospects for companies obtaining refunds through litigation. Importers who directly paid the invalidated tariffs appear to have strong claims for reimbursement, primarily through the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, which has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes. A two-year statute of limitations generally applies. 

While companies’ right to obtain refunds is viewed as legally solid, delays are anticipated through procedural defenses and litigation tactics. Additional complexity arises for downstream purchasers who indirectly bore tariff costs; their recovery prospects will likely depend heavily on contractual allocation of tariff liability and other fact-specific circumstances.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn 
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

...more
View all episodesView all episodes
Download on the App Store

Law, disruptedBy Law, disrupted

  • 4.7
  • 4.7
  • 4.7
  • 4.7
  • 4.7

4.7

67 ratings


More shows like Law, disrupted

View all
Masters in Business by Bloomberg

Masters in Business

2,172 Listeners

Odd Lots by Bloomberg

Odd Lots

1,995 Listeners

Bloomberg Law by Bloomberg

Bloomberg Law

381 Listeners

The Daily by The New York Times

The Daily

113,446 Listeners

Stay Tuned with Preet by Preet Bharara

Stay Tuned with Preet

32,352 Listeners

Interesting Times with Ross Douthat by New York Times Opinion

Interesting Times with Ross Douthat

7,237 Listeners

FT News Briefing by Financial Times

FT News Briefing

672 Listeners

Strict Scrutiny by Strict Scrutiny

Strict Scrutiny

5,849 Listeners

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg by All-In Podcast, LLC

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

10,246 Listeners

The Ezra Klein Show by New York Times Opinion

The Ezra Klein Show

16,543 Listeners

Divided Argument by Will Baude, Dan Epps

Divided Argument

745 Listeners

In Good Company with Nicolai Tangen by Norges Bank Investment Management

In Good Company with Nicolai Tangen

187 Listeners

The Morgan Housel Podcast by Morgan Housel

The Morgan Housel Podcast

989 Listeners

Money Stuff: The Podcast by Bloomberg

Money Stuff: The Podcast

401 Listeners

Unhedged by Financial Times & Pushkin Industries

Unhedged

196 Listeners