Executive Summary
- The Supreme Court ruled President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs illegal, yet CBP systems continued to charge duties due to software delays.
- Approximately $8.2 billion in goods arrived in U.S. ports subject to invalid tariffs in the days following the ruling.
- Importers were required to file post-summary corrections to avoid final payment of the voided duties.
- Refund mechanisms remain uncertain and are expected to be decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade.
WASHINGTON – Despite a Supreme Court ruling declaring President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs illegal, U.S. importers continued to face duty charges on goods entering the country due to lag times in updating U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) systems. The disconnect between the judicial decision and the operational reality of the Cargo System Management Service resulted in tariffs being applied to approximately 211,000 containers valued at $8.2 billion in the days immediately following the judgment.
CBP had not yet updated the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) to remove the duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This administrative delay forced importers to navigate a complex regulatory landscape where voided tariffs remained active in the filing system. According to data from Vizion, the affected cargo arrived in U.S. ports shortly after the court’s decision, subjecting billions in trade to the invalidated fees.
Customs officials issued a bulletin stating the agency was working with other government bodies to examine the implications of the decision. “CBP will provide additional information and technical guidance for Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) filers as soon as it becomes available,” the agency stated. Until such updates were implemented, the system required the reporting of IEEPA tariff codes to release goods.
Lori Mullins, director of operations at Rogers & Brown Custom Brokers, explained the logistical burden. “Customs has not removed the requirement to report the IEEPA tariff codes in order to obtain a release of goods, so for cargo to continue moving, the IEEPA tariffs are still being reported on entries,” Mullins said. She noted that while brokers anticipated a system update, the immediate requirement remained in place.
Legal experts advised importers on the procedural workaround. Michael Lowell, partner at Reed Smith, noted that importers had a 10-day window to settle payments. He explained that businesses would file paperwork with the tariff included, then file a post-summary correction to remove the charge once CBP systems were updated, but before the final payment deadline. “It’ll likely take Customs some time to reconfigure their system to reflect the Court’s ruling,” Lowell said, cautioning that corrections could take up to 30 days.
Significant uncertainty remained regarding refunds for duties already paid, a matter the Supreme Court did not explicitly address. Jurisdiction for refund mechanisms is expected to fall to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). Ben Bidwell, senior director for Customs at C.H. Robinson, highlighted the scale of the financial risk: “This is the first time a tariff has been declared unconstitutional with this amount of money at stake.” Logistics giant Kuehne + Nagel urged clients to prepare all customs documentation in anticipation of potential claims processes.
Administrative & Economic Assessment
The gap between the Supreme Court’s nullification of the tariffs and the administrative capability of CBP to implement the change underscores a significant friction point in U.S. trade infrastructure. The reliance on the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the necessity of manual corrections introduce a temporary but severe liquidity drag on importers, who must manage cash flows against voided liabilities. Furthermore, the deferral of refund adjudication to the Court of International Trade introduces long-term financial ambiguity for supply chains. This event highlights the critical need for agile digital infrastructure within federal agencies to align swiftly with judicial outcomes, minimizing market distortion and operational overhead.
