An Ohio entrepreneur who imports sneaker accessories is trying to recover roughly $25,000 in duties after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February that President Donald Trump’s broad “emergency” tariffs were not authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. U.S. Customs and Border Protection opened an online claims system on April 20, but trade attorneys and policy analysts say the process remains paperwork-heavy and could leave some refund money unclaimed.
An Ohio small-business owner who imports sneaker accessories is attempting to reclaim tariff payments after a major Supreme Court decision narrowed the president’s authority to impose sweeping import duties under an emergency powers law.
The Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 20, 2026, that tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful. The decision set the stage for what government filings and trade groups describe as a large-scale refund effort affecting hundreds of thousands of importers and well over $100 billion in collected duties.
To begin processing refund requests, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) opened an online claims pathway on April 20, 2026, using a tool called the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) within CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment system. Importers of record—or licensed customs brokers acting for them—can submit declarations seeking refunds for eligible IEEPA-based duties.
For small importers, the mechanics of the refund process can be challenging. Richard Brown, who runs Proof Culture in Ohio, said he is pursuing a refund he estimates at up to $25,000, and described spending significant time gathering and digitizing import records and invoices. In voice memos and messages he recorded around the time of the ruling and later in early April, Brown expressed relief at the Supreme Court decision but also frustration with the work required to try to get the money back.
Trade lawyers and industry advocates have warned that refunds may not be automatic and that businesses could face delays, errors, or compliance concerns that slow payment. Reporting around the portal’s rollout described early technical hurdles for some users, including difficulties submitting declarations on the first day.
Policy analysts at the Cato Institute, which has closely tracked the litigation and refund mechanics, have argued that the structure and timing of the refund program could result in a meaningful share of the money never being returned—either because claims are burdensome, some importers lack complete documentation, or deadlines and phased processing leave gaps.
The refund process also unfolds alongside other tariffs that remain in place under separate legal authorities. Importers and their advisers have said companies must distinguish IEEPA-based duties potentially eligible for refunds from other tariffs—such as Section 232 duties on products including steel and aluminum—that are not affected by the Supreme Court ruling.
For Brown, the choice is practical as much as legal: he said pursuing the refund competes with day-to-day demands of running a small business, even as he views the money as meaningful to his company’s finances.
