Supreme Court ruling sparks tariff refund wave
Companies begin reclaiming IEEPA tariffs after the Court’s decision, though recovery remains uneven and uncertain.
A U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) has triggered a wave of refund claims from companies that paid billions in duties, though the ultimate recovery remains clouded by legal and procedural hurdles. At least six firms—including PepsiCo (PEP), Helen of Troy (HELE), and Levi Strauss (LEVI)—have filed claims or begun recognizing receivables, while others, like PriceSmart (PSMT), avoided the tariffs entirely through Free Trade Zone operations.
PepsiCo has already started receiving refunds from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), though the company cautioned that the timing, amount, and ultimate recoverability of its claims remain uncertain. Helen of Troy, which paid $80.5 million in IEEPA tariffs during fiscal 2026, submitted Phase 1 refund claims totaling $6.0 million and recorded $1.9 million as a probable receivable. Levi Strauss, which disclosed $80 million in tariff payments through the first quarter of 2026, is monitoring the evolving landscape while exploring mitigation strategies like supplier negotiations and price adjustments.
The legal fallout from the ruling has been swift but uneven. The Supreme Court’s decision led to the replacement of aggregate tariffs (ranging from 19% to 25%) on imports from China, Vietnam, Mexico, and Thailand with a temporary 10% Section 122 tariff, which was later struck down by the U.S. Court of International Trade—yet remains in place pending appeal. For some, like PriceSmart, the ruling had no financial impact; its Miami Distribution Center operates within a Free Trade Zone, shielding it from the tariffs entirely. Others, like Kura Sushi USA (KRUS), continue to grapple with elevated costs across food, beverage, construction, and equipment expenses tied to tariffs.
The uncertainty extends beyond refunds. PureCycle (PCYO) updated its risk disclosures to reflect ongoing volatility in U.S. tariff policy, warning that new duties under alternative legal authorities could increase costs or delay projects. With appeals still pending and new tariff regimes under consideration, companies face a patchwork of risks—some recouping past payments, others bracing for fresh financial strain.