The Supreme Court said the President could not impose his tariffs, about $100 billion has gone back out in refunds, and a household still pays about $1,100 a year: what the record shows on tariffs

What happened

On February 20, 2026 the Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. The holding is one sentence: "IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs" [1]. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, said the President had rested his worldwide tariffs on "two words separated by 16 others" in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, "regulate" and "importation," and that "those words cannot bear such weight"; the statute "contains no reference to tariffs or duties" [1]. The opinion was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson; Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas [2].

The tariffs did not end. The administration ended the IEEPA duties and proclaimed a temporary surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute that allows up to 15 percent for up to 150 days and had never before been used for tariffs; when those expired on July 24, 2026 it imposed a new set under Section 301, and it has continued to use Section 232 for steel, aluminum and copper and, since July 2026, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 against Canadian goods [2][3][10]. The Court did not rule on any of those authorities [2].

The money went in and is going back out. The Congressional Budget Office reports gross customs duties of $154 billion from October 2025 through July 2026, against $136 billion in the same months a year earlier, and separately that "about $100 billion has been issued in refunds for tariffs collected under the IEEPA authority" since May [3]. In July 2026 alone, refunds of $36 billion exceeded gross collections of $26 billion, so customs produced a net outflow for the month [3]. CBO now expects total 2026 tariff and customs collections to come in about $250 billion, or 60 percent, below its earlier projection [3]. Gross receipts and refunds are different quantities and this story does not net them.

Who gets a refund is still in court. The Court of International Trade ordered the government to refund all IEEPA tariff payments to all importers of record; the Justice Department appealed to the Federal Circuit on June 3, 2026, arguing the trade court "cannot order the government to refund money to non-plaintiffs" [5]. By mid-June the government had represented that more than $95 billion was queued for refund out of $166 billion collected under IEEPA, according to Holland & Knight's reading of the filings [5]. The importers filed their Federal Circuit brief on October 5, 2026 and the appeal was pending as of October 9 [6].

For a household, the Budget Lab at Yale estimates that the replacement tariffs leave the average statutory tariff rate at 11.0 percent, headed to 11.8 percent by year end under current law, with an ultimate consumer price impact of about 0.7 percent and "household costs due to tariffs" of "about $1,100 annually under current law"; those are modeled figures as of August 24, 2026, and they assume the tariffs then scheduled stay in place [4].

For farmers and distillers the cost is in the export columns. The American Farm Bureau Federation reports U.S. soybean exports to China of 218 million bushels from January through August 2025, against 985 million bushels in 2024, with USDA projecting agricultural exports to China of $17 billion in 2025, down 30 percent from 2024, and $9 billion in 2026 [7]. U.S. spirits exports to Canada fell 70 percent between March and December 2025 by the Distilled Spirits Council's count, and the Kentucky Distillers' Association says the state lost half its Canadian whiskey exports in 2025 after Canadians, in its president's words, "taken all U.S. alcohol off their shelves" [8].

Why it matters

The Court is the messenger here, not a critic. Six justices, two of them appointed by President Trump, held that the emergency statute he used for a year of worldwide tariffs did not give him that power, and the Treasury has since paid back about $100 billion of what was collected under it [1][2][3]. The replacement tariffs were imposed under other statutes, so the household bill continued; the ruling changed who had the authority, not what a family pays [4]. The export numbers are what a farmer or a distiller can check against their own books [7][8].

The evidence

• Supreme Court, Learning Resources v. Trump, February 20, 2026: the holding and the Court's reasoning, in the Court's words [1].
• Congressional Research Service, February 23, 2026: the lineup of justices, the Section 122 proclamation that followed, and what the Court did not decide [2].
• CBO Monthly Budget Review for July 2026, August 10, 2026: gross customs duties, the $100 billion in IEEPA refunds, July's net outflow, the Section 122 to Section 301 switch and the lowered 2026 projection [3].
• Budget Lab at Yale, updated August 24, 2026: 11.0 percent statutory rate, 0.7 percent price impact, about $1,100 per household a year [4].
• Holland & Knight, June 15, 2026, and Husch Blackwell, October 9, 2026: the trade court's universal refund order, the appeal, the dollar figures the government has represented and the status of the case [5][6].
• American Farm Bureau Federation, October 2, 2025: soybean bushels and USDA's export projections for China [7].
• LEX 18, March 6, 2026: the Distilled Spirits Council's 70 percent figure and the Kentucky Distillers' Association's account [8].
• White House fact sheets of June 1 and October 23, 2026: the administration's investment claim and its stated grounds for the Canada tariffs [9][10].

Response and counterpoints

The administration's case is that tariffs have "secured trillions in private and foreign investment to bring jobs and manufacturing back to the United States," that steel, aluminum and copper duties under Section 232 made the United States the third-largest steel producer in 2025, and that the Canada duties answer Canadian retaliation on about $20 billion of U.S. exports after Canada "walked away from a near-final trade deal" [9][10]. Those claims are reported as the White House made them; the investment figure is not itemized in the fact sheet [9]. On refunds, the government's argument is a legal one about remedy, that after Trump v. CASA the trade court may not issue a universal injunction and that Customs cannot reliquidate finally liquidated entries without importer-specific orders; it does not dispute that the IEEPA duties were unlawful [6]. The Farm Bureau itself notes that China's shift to Brazilian and Argentine soybeans began before 2025 and that record Chinese imports are now being filled by competitors, so the 2025 collapse is the continuation of a trend as well as a response to the trade fight [7].

What remains uncertain

The refund total will move: CBO's "about $100 billion" is as of July 2026 and preliminary, Holland & Knight's $95 billion queued and $166 billion collected are the government's representations in court filings as summarized by a law firm, and the Federal Circuit had not ruled as of October 9, 2026 on whether importers who never sued are entitled to refunds at all [3][5][6]. The household figure is a model: Yale's $1,100 depends on the tariffs scheduled as of August 24, 2026 and on how much of the duty passes through to prices; the Budget Lab has published earlier vintages with different rates and costs, and this story cites one vintage and dates it [4]. The soybean comparison is eight months of 2025 against a full year of 2024, as the Farm Bureau presents it, and is not annualized here [7]. The 70 percent spirits decline is a trade association's figure covering March to December 2025, and the Kentucky figure covers a different product and period; they are not combined [8]. Whether the Section 122, 301, 232 and 338 tariffs will survive their own challenges is not addressed by the Supreme Court's opinion [2].

Money and method

Dollar figures are kept in their own columns: gross customs receipts and IEEPA refunds from CBO, never netted against each other or against export losses [3]; amounts queued or collected under IEEPA from the law-firm summaries of government filings, labeled as such [5]; the household cost from one dated Yale vintage with its assumptions in the same sentence [4]; export volumes and values from the Farm Bureau, in bushels and dollars as it reports them, with USDA as the underlying source for the dollar projections [7]. The Court's words are quoted from the opinion; the vote lineup is from the Congressional Research Service's summary [1][2]. The administration's investment claim is reported as a claim [9].

Sources cited

1. [1]
   Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 (opinion of the Court) — Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-02-20.

   supports · Syllabus, No. 24-1287, argued November 5, 2025, decided February 20, 2026: 'Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs'; Part II of the opinion: 'Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—"regulate" and "importation"—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight'; 'IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties'; 'we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs' · checked 2026-10-27 · source N-tar-01
2. [2]
   Supreme Court Rules Against Tariffs Imposed Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), LSB11398 — Congressional Research Service, 2026-02-23.

   supports · Legal Sidebar LSB11398, February 23, 2026: opinion 'authored by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson'; 'a dissenting opinion by Justice Kavanaugh (joined by Justices Alito and Thomas)'; 'Following the Court's decision, President Trump proclaimed new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974'; Section 122 'temporary' surcharge 'of up to 150 days, with a maximum rate of 15%'; the Court 'did not address tariffs the President may impose under other statutory authorities, including Section 232 and Section 301' · checked 2026-10-27 · source N-tar-02
3. [3]
   Monthly Budget Review: July 2026 — Congressional Budget Office, 2026-08-10.

   supports · Monthly Budget Review: July 2026, published August 10, 2026: 'On February 20, the Supreme Court ruled that the Administration could not impose tariffs under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)'; 'When the section 122 tariffs expired on July 24, the Administration imposed a new set of tariffs under section 301'; customs duties October–July $154 billion (FY2026, preliminary) versus $136 billion (FY2025); 'About $100 billion has been issued in refunds for tariffs collected under the IEEPA authority'; 'In July 2026, refunds of customs duties ($36 billion) exceeded gross collections ($26 billion)'; 'all tariffs and customs duties collected in 2026 will be about $250 billion (or 60 percent) below earlier projections' · checked 2026-10-27 · source N-tar-03
4. [4]
   The State of U.S. Tariffs — The Budget Lab at Yale, 2026-08-24.

   supports · Key Takeaways, updated August 24, 2026: 'The average statutory tariff rate now stands at 11.0%, roughly where it settled after Section 122 tariffs expired on July 24th and were replaced with new tariffs under Section 301. Under current law ... this figure is set to be 11.8% by the end of this year'; 'We estimate the ultimate consumer price impact of current-law tariff policy to be about 0.7%'; 'Estimated household costs due to tariffs total about $1,100 annually under current law' · checked 2026-10-27 · source N-tar-04
5. [5]
   IEEPA Tariff Refund Update: Government Appeals CIT Refund Orders — Holland & Knight, 2026-06-15.

   supports · Alert of June 15, 2026: 'the Court of International Trade (CIT) ordered the federal government to refund all IEEPA tariff payments to all importers of record'; DOJ 'filed notices of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit' on June 3, 2026; government 'has represented that more than $95 billion has been queued for refund through CAPE'; Phase 1 claims 'approximately $90 billion of the total $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs collected'; DOJ position that 'the court cannot order the government to refund money to non-plaintiffs' · checked 2026-10-27 · source N-tar-05
6. [6]
   CIT Universal Injunction Power Challenged in IEEPA Refund Appeal — International Trade and Supply Chain Insights (Husch Blackwell), 2026-10-09.

   context · Post of October 9, 2026: importers led by V.O.S. Selections filed their Federal Circuit brief October 5, 2026; 'The case will now be reviewed by the Federal Circuit with a decision forthcoming'; government argues the CIT 'is barred from issuing universal injunctions after the Supreme Court's Trump v. CASA, Inc.' decision and that CBP 'cannot reliquidate finally liquidated entries to issue refunds without importer-specific court orders' · checked 2026-10-27 · source N-tar-06
7. [7]
   Agricultural Trade: China Steps Back from U.S. Soybeans — American Farm Bureau Federation, Market Intel, 2025-10-02.

   supports · Market Intel, October 2, 2025, Faith Parum: U.S. soybean exports to China '985 million bushels' in 2024 versus '218 million bushels' January–August 2025; 'USDA projects that U.S. agricultural exports to China will total $17 billion in 2025, down 30% from 2024 and more than 50% from 2022'; 2026 'expected to fall to just $9 billion'; Brazil 'about 2.5 billion bushels' to China over the same period; 'China has steadily diversified its suppliers' · checked 2026-10-27 · source N-tar-07
8. [8]
   'We've definitely taken our hits': US spirits exports to Canada falls 70% March through December 2025 — LEX 18 News (WLEX, Lexington), 2026-03-06.

   supports · Report of March 6, 2026: 'U.S. spirits exports to Canada fell 70% between March and December 2025, according to data from the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States'; Eric Gregory, Kentucky Distillers' Association: 'We've lost 50% of our exports in 2025 to Canada alone'; 'they've taken all U.S. alcohol off their shelves' · checked 2026-10-27 · source N-tar-08
9. [9]
   Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Updates Tariffs on Steel, Aluminum and Copper Imports — The White House, 2026-06-01.

   disputes · Fact sheet of June 1, 2026: 'Through negotiations and the strategic use of tariffs, President Trump has secured trillions in private and foreign investment to bring jobs and manufacturing back to the United States'; Section 232 steel, aluminum and copper actions · checked 2026-10-27 · source N-tar-09
10. [10]
    Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Further Modifies Canadian Products Subject to Tariffs Under Section 338 — The White House, 2026-10-23.

    context · Fact sheet of October 23, 2026: Proclamation under 'Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930' modifying tariffs on Canadian products 'previously announced on July 20, 2026 and modified on September 8, 2026'; 'After Canada walked away from a near-final trade deal ... and imposed new retaliatory tariffs on about $20 billion of U.S. exports'; Section 338 tariffs 'apply in addition to tariffs imposed under Section 232'; changes 'will take effect on October 30, 2026' · checked 2026-10-27 · source N-tar-10