U.S. Could Refund Half of Tariff Revenue if Supreme Court Rules Against Trum...

TMTPOST -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott recently suggested the government would lose federal revenue amounting to tens of billions of dollars if the Supreme Court upholds an appeals court’s ruling against President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

Credit：the Architect of the Capitol

If these tariffs implemented since Trump’s second presidential term are shot down by the Supreme Court’s ruling, “We would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury,” Bessent said during an interview with NBC News on Sunday.

“If the court says it, we’d have to do it,” Bessent replied when asked if the administration was prepared to provide those refunds, adding that he felt confident that Trump would win the tariff case.

Trump has long sold his tariff plan as a new source of cash for the government. Recent data from the Department of Treasury showed tariffs have taken tens of billions of additional federal revenue.

The government received about $27.7 billion in customs duties in July, refreshing a new monthly record following June’s tariff revenue of $26.6 billion and May’s $22.2 billion. That represents a magnificent jump from around $8 billion a year ago, and brings the total for the fiscal year ending September 30 to around $135.7 billion.

Bessent on Sunday issued warning of significant disruption if the Supreme Court’s delaying ruling lead to a refund of around half of a trillion dollar.

“Delaying a ruling until June 2026 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion in tariffs have already been collected, and unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he said.

Bessent’s remarks showcased the Trump administration is pressing the Supreme Court not to agree with lower courts with most worldwide levies imposed are illegal.

The Trump administration had argued that a president can unilaterally impose wide-ranging, global tariffs by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to protect the U.S. from international threats. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. on August 29 upheld the Court of International Trade (CIT)’s ruling against Trump’s tariff, finding thatTrump overstepped his presidential powers with his global tariffs.

The appeals court said in a filling that it agreed that the IEEPA ’s grant of presidential authority to “regulate” imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by his five executive orders. The ruling shot down most of tariffs that the Trump administration has implemented so far this year, including reciprocal tariffs on all the trading partners and trafficking tariffs hitting Canada, Mexico and China. “We dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the CIT’s summary judgment that the reciprocal and trafficking tariffs are unlawful,” the appeals court in its opinion concluded.

The Trump administration last week appealed to the Supreme Court to protect his global tariffs, and asked the court to accept a schedule with a decision on the petition for a writ of certiorati by September 10, and upon a grant of certiorari, to expedite consideration of the case so that oral arguments can be heard heard as soon as the first week of November and a final decision on the legality of the disputed tariffs can be issued soon afterward.

That schedule, if accepted, would materially fast-track the ruling of Trump’s sweeping tariffs. The Supreme Court normally would take as long as early next summer to issue such a decision.

Trump last Wednesday said his administration would prevail in the case, and if the Supreme Court doesn’t uphold his tariffs, the U.S. government may have to “unwind” existing trade deals it reached with the European Union, Japan and South Korea. "If we don't win that case, our country is going to suffer so greatly," Trump told reporters before meeting with Polish President Karol Nawrocki. "These deals are all done. I guess we'd have to unwind them."

Trump threatened that rescinding the tariffs would cost the U.S. a lot. "Our country has a chance to be unbelievably rich again. It could also be unbelievably poor again. If we don’t win that case, our country is going to suffer so greatly, so greatly," he said.