Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs. Black-Owned Businesses Absorbed the Damage. Now What?
Howard University News Service reporter Armani Durham reports on the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling striking down Trump's IEEPA tariffs, the subsequent Section 122 replacement tariffs and their own legal challenges, the $85 billion in accepted refund claims now being contested and the disproportionate impact on Black-owned businesses, 52% of which reported a decline in sales.
On Feb. 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump that President Donald Trump was not authorized to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
IEEPA, created in 1977, authorizes the president to act during a national emergency to regulate commerce, freeze assets or impose economic sanctions. Trump used the law, declaring national emergencies to bypass Congress and impose tariffs, sanction foreign entities and threaten economic action.
“The decision to move very quickly to both impose tariffs and then increase those tariffs has injected new lines of uncertainty and a lack of predictability to markets that doesn’t serve the United States economy or those market participants as well,” said Eric Morrissette, a senior fellow at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
The ruling carries national significance, as it not only reshapes consumer prices and business costs but also redefines the limits of presidential authority over trade and signals a broader shift in United States economic and global policy.
On Feb. 24, Trump signed a proclamation under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to address “fundamental international payment problems,” imposing a 10% global import surcharge for 150 days as a replacement for the invalidated IEEPA tariffs. Tariffs imposed under Section 122 require congressional approval to continue beyond 150 days and are set to expire July 24, 2026.
However, the Section 122 tariffs have since faced their own legal challenge. On May 7, the Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 that the 10% surcharge is also unlawful — though unlike the IEEPA ruling, that decision granted relief only to the plaintiffs involved in the case, not to all importers broadly.
Approximately 90% of tariff costs were paid by businesses and consumers in the United States, not in foreign countries. Businesses that rely on imports saw input costs rise.
“At the end of the day, we all receive the repercussions behind their actions,” said Tony Barnes, co-owner of Oohh’s & Aahh’s.
After the IEEPA tariffs were struck down, companies became eligible to seek refunds totaling an estimated $130 billion to $175 billion. On March 4, in Atmus Filtration v. U.S., the Court of International Trade ordered CBP to refund unlawful IEEPA tariffs. CBP subsequently launched its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries system, known as CAPE, on April 20, 2026, establishing a formal pathway for importers to submit refund claims through the Automated Commercial Environment portal.
As of May 26, CBP reported receiving approximately 157,400 CAPE declarations, with roughly $85 billion in accepted refund claims and approximately $20.6 billion already processed. Refunds are issued electronically via Automated Clearing House and are primarily available to importers of record registered in the ACE system.
The refund process, however, remains contested. On May 29, CBP reversed its earlier position and asserted for the first time that it lacks legal authority to issue IEEPA refunds on finally liquidated entries, those 180 days or more past liquidation, without an importer-specific court judgment. The government filed an appeal of the CIT’s nationwide refund order on June 2. A hearing is scheduled for June 9, where the court directed CBP Commissioner Rodney S. Scott to appear in person to address the anticipated timeline for compliance. A successful appeal could result in a stay of the refund process and significantly delay payments for many importers.
Trump’s tariffs, including those imposed under IEEPA before it was invalidated, have impacted businesses across the country, including Black-owned businesses.
Black-owned businesses are less able to absorb rising costs and economic uncertainty because of their smaller size, limited financial resources and concentration in import-dependent and customer-facing industries. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, tariffs increased input costs, leading Black-owned businesses to raise prices, cut staff or both. Higher input costs disproportionately affect Black small businesses, as they often operate on narrower profit margins and have less access to capital than white-owned businesses. Approximately 52% of Black-owned businesses experienced a decline in sales due to tariffs.
“The prices have changed. They’re going up,” said the manager of JC Lofton Tailors, who goes by Shoemaker to customers. “Then you have to go up on your customers, and you don’t want to lose them.”
Trump’s tariffs affected everyday people, with some populations being more vulnerable, such as the Black community.
“There are real people on the other side of this, who have both their life and their livelihoods tied into the decisions that are being made,” Morrissette said. “I think they all deserve the respect and the honor of being considered before a rush of action, which seems to have been the case.”
Armani Durham is a reporter for HUNewsService.com. This article has been updated by the editor to the most recent updates surrounding Tariffs.