Ask Onix
Supreme Court ruling triggers historic refund process
The US Supreme Court invalidated tariffs imposed under former President Donald Trump, setting the stage for the largest repayment program in US history. The decision affects over $160 billion in duties collected, with roughly 330,000 importers eligible for refunds. Customs officials are expected to launch the refund system this month, with a progress update due in court on 14 April.
Consumers and small businesses face uphill battle
While the ruling offers relief to direct importers, it excludes consumers and businesses that bore the costs indirectly through higher prices or fees. Alex Grossomanides, a 37-year-old personal trainer from Massachusetts, was billed $400 in tariffs and processing fees for a $250 jacket made in Myanmar-nearly double the coat's price. He paid the charges via shipping firm DHL but has yet to hear about a refund.
"They should be refunding people. It's all my money, and I took the hit for it, which I don't think is fair."
Alex Grossomanides, Massachusetts resident
Tariffs' ripple effects persist
Economic studies indicate most importers passed tariff costs to consumers through price hikes, a consequence unaddressed by the court's decision. Sue Johnson, a California-based lamp maker, saw mica prices double due to tariffs, crippling her small business. She doubts the ruling will bring her relief.
"Maybe they'll get repaid, but I have no hope they're going to refund me."
Sue Johnson, small business owner
Kacie Wright of Houghton Horns, a Texas musical instrument importer, noted that even refunds won't fully offset losses. Her company spent six months navigating customs bureaucracy to register for potential repayments, incurring additional costs.
Legal and logistical hurdles
Customs has placed the burden on businesses to compile documentation for claims, deterring smaller firms. Jared Slipman, a tax lawyer, warns some may abandon the process, while others could resort to litigation to recover losses. Consumers, he argues, face the steepest challenges.
"It may very well be the case that this is an orchestrated theft from the American consumer... and that would be very unfortunate."
Jared Slipman, tax attorney
James Tak, who paid a $24 tariff on a gift from Japan, acknowledges the complexity but wants his money back. "I just think it's money I shouldn't have to pay," the 41-year-old Washington resident said.
Shipping firms and retailers under scrutiny
FedEx has pledged to return refunds to customers, but other firms remain noncommittal. Class-action lawsuits accuse retailers like Costco, EssilorLuxottica (Ray-Ban's parent company), and Kate Hudson's Fabletics of unjust enrichment-retaining refunds despite passing costs to consumers. Adrian Bacon, a litigation attorney, argues private lawsuits may be the only recourse, as government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission have limited jurisdiction over policy-driven disputes.
Political divisions over refund distribution
Trump administration officials have weighed in, with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer urging companies to share refunds with workers as bonuses. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, however, suggested consumers were unlikely to benefit.
"I got a feeling the American people won't see it."
Scott Bessent, US Treasury Secretary
