Trump's post hints that the Supreme Court will overturn the "reciprocal tariffs"? American companies are already "rushing" to compete for "tax refunds"

As a key ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court approaches, a complex game is unfolding between Washington and American businesses. The Trump administration appears to be quietly preparing a "Plan B" to maintain its signature tariff policy, while the business community is rushing to take legal action to ensure they secure a place in the potential tariff refunds that could exceed $100 billion.

The latest developments come from President Trump himself. According to recent media reports, Trump posted on social media platform Truth Social on Sunday (December 7) that even if the Supreme Court limits his powers, he still has "other ways" to impose tariffs. This statement has been interpreted by some market analysts as him preparing for a potentially unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the actions of the American business community are more direct. Retail giant Costco has joined a number of companies, including Revlon and Ray-Ban, in suing the Trump administration. This move aims to ensure that if the court rules that the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are illegal, the companies will be eligible for refunds on the tariffs they have paid.

At the core of this series of developments is the impending Supreme Court ruling, which will determine whether the Trump administration has the authority to impose tariffs on a large scale using emergency powers. This case not only relates to the future direction of U.S. trade policy but also affects the ultimate allocation of tariff revenues that could reach $100 billion, with one Supreme Court Justice describing the potential impact as possibly causing "chaos."

Government "Plan B": Tariffs May Continue

Despite facing legal challenges, the Trump administration has made it clear that it will continue to implement its tariff policy. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin revealed that he is preparing a "Plan B" to respond to a potentially unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court.

Reports indicate that Mnuchin's plan is to utilize other legal authorities to maintain the existing tariff structure. He stated, "We can rebuild the exact same tariff structure through Section 301, Section 232, and what I believe is called Section 122." These sections pertain to unfair trade practices, national security threats, and balance of payments crises, providing the president with different authorizations for trade actions.

At the same time, government officials are taking a hard stance on the possibility of refunds. Mnuchin warned that a ruling declaring the tariffs illegal could trigger "massive refunds" for businesses, which would impose a significant financial and administrative burden on the Treasury Department. Commerce Secretary Ross bluntly stated in a media interview that businesses waiting for refunds "will not happen," emphasizing that "regardless, we will have tariffs in the future."

Businesses Competing to "Queue Up": Legal Action is Urgent

As the government adopts a tough stance, American businesses are rushing to take various legal avenues to protect their interests.

According to Yahoo Finance, the core driving force behind businesses taking action is the approaching "liquidation" deadline. In trade terminology, "liquidation" refers to the final calculation and confirmation of tariffs owed on imported goods. This process typically occurs within 10 to 11 months after the imposition of tariffs. Businesses are concerned that once the tariffs are "liquidated," the difficulty of applying for refunds in the future will significantly increase To this end, large companies represented by Costco have chosen to file lawsuits directly, requesting the court to prevent the settlement of the tariffs they have paid, in order to "ensure that their right to a full refund is not compromised."

Other companies, particularly smaller enterprises, tend to submit formal "protest" documents to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

International trade lawyer Ted Murphy reminds clients that refunds "are almost certainly not automatic," and importers should take steps now to protect their rights.

Market Interpretation: Losing the Case but No Refund on Tariffs?

Beyond official statements and corporate actions, market analysts are trying to interpret the possible outcomes of this game. A widely discussed viewpoint suggests that the final result may be that the Trump administration loses in court, but companies do not get their refunds back.

Jim Bianco of Bianco Research analyzed on social platform X that he expects the Supreme Court to rule that imposing tariffs under IEEPA is illegal, but at the same time, the court may not order the refund of approximately $167 billion in tariffs already collected, to avoid "potentially crippling the economy." He believes the court may leave the refund issue to Congress.

This viewpoint is supported by a "friend of the court" statement from the America First Policy Institute (AFPI). The statement argues that the president has broad powers under the Tariff Act of 1930 to impose sanctions or penalties on actors harming U.S. interests, and courts are generally reluctant to intervene in the president's authority in this area. This means that even if the IEEPA route is blocked, the government may still reimpose similar tariff measures under the guise of "sanctions."

Uncertain Outlook and Firm Stance

Currently, all parties are preparing for various possibilities, and the outlook of the entire event is filled with uncertainty. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett bluntly stated during the November hearing that the potential refund process "may be a mess in my view."

Lawyer Neal Katyal, representing the companies, also acknowledged that the refund process is "very difficult" and hinted that other companies, besides those filing lawsuits, need to take action, such as submitting administrative protests.

Overall, investors and companies are facing a complex situation: on one hand, the Supreme Court's ruling may open the door to substantial refunds; on the other hand, the Trump administration has made it clear that it will "spare no effort" to prevent refunds and has prepared alternative measures to maintain tariffs. As trade lawyer Erik Smithweiss stated: "We expect the government's response will be 'fight hard, unless a judge tells you that you absolutely must refund, otherwise don’t give a penny back.'"