(972) 762-2800

Author: ryderr

Navigating the Post-Trump Tariff Refund Landscape
Navigating the Post-Trump Tariff Refund Landscape

Dallas Trade Law Expert, Michelle Schulz, Explains How Companies Can Secure Refunds on Unconstitutional Duties

The international trade world recently experienced a seismic shift. With the Supreme Court deeming significant portions of the Trump administration’s tariff policies void, thousands of U.S. companies may now be eligible for substantial refunds. However, reclaiming those tariff refunds isn’t as simple as sending an invoice to the government.

Feb 20, 2026

Your Money Now

Compass Networks

Host: Dan Loney

Listen

In a recent interview on Your Money Now, Michelle Schulz, founder of Schulz Trade Law & Consulting and a leading expert in international trade litigation, outlined the roadmap for businesses seeking to recover their duty payments.

The Path to Recovery: Precision and Compliance

As Schulz points out, the burden of proof rests entirely on the importer. When the stakes involve federal refunds, the government’s scrutiny is at an all-time high.

“It’s very important to dot your i’s and cross your t’s in this situation where you’re asking for money back,” Schulz noted.

To successfully navigate this process, Schulz identifies two critical pillars for any recovery strategy:
- Deep-Dive Import Compliance: Before filing a claim, companies must ensure their entire import history is beyond reproach. Any existing compliance gaps could not only jeopardize a refund but potentially trigger an unwanted audit.
- Granular Duty Calculation: Understanding exactly how your duties were calculated—and where the specific voided policies applied—is essential. Accuracy in these technical calculations is the difference between a successful claim and a rejected one.
Don’t Leave Money on the Table

The complexity of trade law means that many companies may not even realize the full extent of the refunds they are owed. The transition from policy to litigation to actual recovery requires a meticulous, legally sound approach.

Take Action: Secure Your Trade Audit Today

Is your business positioned to recover its miscalculated duties? Don’t let administrative complexity stand between your company and its rightful capital.

Contact Schulz Trade Consulting to schedule a comprehensive tariff recovery consultation. Our team of experts will help you audit your compliance, recalculate your duties, and ensure every “i” is dotted and every “t” is crossed.

Schedule your consultation and protect your bottom line.
February 22, 2026
The SCOTUS Tariff Ruling: Why the Battle for Free Trade is Just Beginning
The SCOTUS Tariff Ruling: Why the Battle for Free Trade is Just Beginning

How the Administration is Pivoting to New Statutes After a Major Legal Defeat

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a significant blow to executive overreach in international trade. By striking down global tariffs imposed under emergency powers, the Court has reasserted that the power to tax remains with Congress. However, as the Dow surges 200 points in response to the news, a new era of trade uncertainty is already unfolding.

International trade attorney Michelle Schulz joined KNX Radio to explain why importers should temper their celebrations with strategic preparation.

Feb 20, 2026

KNX Radio

Los Angeles

Listen

The Constitutional Rejection of IEEPA

The nation’s highest court ruled that the administration broke federal laws by claiming emergency powers under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The ruling clarified that the President cannot unilaterally levy reciprocal taxes on nearly every trading partner without Congressional approval.

“The justices in the majority found that the Constitution very clearly gives Congress the power to impose taxes.”

— Antwan Lewis, Reporting on the SCOTUS Decision

The New Arsenal: Section 232 and Section 301

Despite the ruling, the administration is vowing to use “other avenues” to keep tariffs in place. This includes a pivot to alternative federal statutes that do not require an emergency declaration but still allow for significant trade barriers:
- Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962): Used to justify an across-the-board 10% tariff on goods based on national security.
- Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974): Allows for investigations into “unfair trade practices,” which could lead to additional, targeted tariffs.
“The President can legally impose tariffs under different laws even if businesses would rather not see that happen.”

— Michelle Schulz

Importer Frustration and the “Complex” Path to Refunds

While the SCOTUS decision offers hope for reclaiming past payments, Michelle Schulz warns that the refund process for IEEPA-related tariffs will be “complex and nuanced”. Many importers remain frustrated, as they continue to face penalties for non-payment while navigating a system that may soon be hit with a fresh wave of secondary tariffs.

“There may be refunds available on these IEEPA tariffs, but importers should keep in mind that that could take a very long time.”

— Michelle Schulz

Is Your Business Prepared for the Next Wave?

The “emergency” may be over, but the era of high tariffs is simply changing shape. Whether you are seeking a refund for previous IEEPA payments or need to prepare for upcoming Section 301 investigations, expert legal counsel is essential.

Schulz Trade Consulting is currently assisting clients in navigating these new statutory hurdles. Contact us today.

Protect your business—don’t navigate 2026 tariffs alone.
February 22, 2026
SCOTUS Strikes Down Global Tariffs: What Importers Need to Know Now

SCOTUS Strikes Down Global Tariffs: What Importers Need to Know Now

Navigating the Path to Refunds in the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision

The landscape of international trade shifted dramatically this past Friday. In a long-awaited ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the majority of President Trump’s global tariffs. While the decision brings a wave of optimism to the trade community, the road to financial recovery is paved with complex administrative hurdles.

Feb 20, 2026

This Morning with Gordon Deal

Host: Gordon Deal

Michelle Schulz, International Trade Attorney and founder of Schulz Trade Law, joined This Morning with Gordon Deal to break down the ruling and provide a roadmap for businesses seeking to reclaim their funds.

Listen

Immediate Impact vs. Long-term Recovery

While the collection of these tariffs was expected to cease immediately following the Friday ruling, the refund process is far from instantaneous. Schulz warns that while the legal victory is significant, the logistics of returning capital to businesses will be “a bit of a chaotic process”.

“The collection of tariffs should stop immediately. However, refunds are going to be a different story… I think it’s going to be months, if not longer.” — Michelle Schulz

The Digital Hurdles of the Automated Commercial Environment

Refunds will be processed electronically through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). For importers, this means technical readiness is just as important as legal standing. Businesses must ensure they are properly registered and that their import data is meticulously organized to facilitate claims.

“Importers need to be set up in the electronic system and ready to go with their claims. It’s not always easy from a techie perspective—you have to do your homework there.” — Michelle Schulz

Avoiding the “Defensive”: Record Keeping and Compliance

With Customs currently in a high-enforcement mode, Schulz emphasizes that “getting your ducks in a row” is a matter of survival, not just administration. Customs requires a five-year record-keeping period, and any gaps in documentation could lead to seizures or penalties rather than refunds.

“If you are not prepared and if you don’t have five years of import records, you could find yourself on the defensive.” — Michelle Schulz

Get Started on Your Refund Claim Today

The Supreme Court has opened the door, but it is up to your business to walk through it with the right data and legal strategy. At Schulz Trade Consulting, we are currently auditing import data for our clients to calculate exact owed amounts and file proper claims.

Don’t leave your capital in the government’s hands.

Protect your business—don’t navigate 2026 tariffs alone.

February 21, 2026
Jeans $10 More & Prices Soaring: 2026 Tariffs Crushing Small Biz & Trucking Suppliers

Jeans $10 More & Prices Soaring:

2026 Tariffs Crushing Small Biz & Trucking Suppliers

Michelle Schulz Reveals How Current Tariffs Are Raising Prices and Challenging Small Businesses and Trucking Supply Chains

Overview:

In a timely SiriusXM Road Dog Trucking interview on February 17, 2026, Michelle Schulz of Schulz Trade Law in Dallas shares expert analysis on how current U.S. tariffs continue to raise prices on electronics, apparel, steel, aluminum and more.

With over 23 years as a leading tariff attorney, Schulz discusses enforcement at the border, shifting rules, inventory headaches for manufacturers supplying the trucking industry, and practical compliance strategies every importer needs now.

Feb 17, 2026

Road Dog Trucking

SiriusXM Radio

Host: Mark Willis

Listen

Tariffs Driving Up Consumer Prices and Challenging Small Businesses

Tariffs are no longer just headline news—they’re hitting wallets and bottom lines hard. Larger brands initially absorbed costs, but now companies like Columbia Sportswear and Levi Strauss are passing increases to consumers, with jeans rising $5–$10 and spring merchandise seeing high-single-digit hikes.

Small businesses importing parts and components face the biggest squeeze because they cannot keep absorbing 25–50%+ duties on textiles, steel, aluminum or copper.

“I believe the tariffs alone have a dramatic impact on the price of goods today, and I think that Columbia Sportswear is a great example, because they probably absorbed some of the tariffs in the beginning. And it’s been slow rolling, because there were companies that could absorb tariffs in the beginning, whereas the smaller ones usually couldn’t. We’re reaching a point where they’re saying, hey, well, we’re going to have to drive our prices up now, because nothing’s changed.”

Expert Guidance on International Trade Compliance and Navigating Changing Rules

Every product and every country of origin carries its own tariff rate under IEEPA, Section 232 and other authorities. Customs guidance keeps evolving, often stricter than original executive orders, leaving importers scrambling to classify goods correctly and avoid penalties.

Michelle Schulz helps Dallas-area and nationwide companies stay compliant in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system amid daily rule changes.

“So I do international trade law, and I have done international trade for over 23 years. I help companies that import and export and help them to be compliant with US regulations. It can be very difficult with these tariffs, because there are different interpretations, and what I’m doing right now is helping companies navigate the different interpretations and the enforcement that’s pretty strong right now on those who don’t pay the tariffs correctly.”

Border Enforcement, Cargo Holds & Trucking Industry Supply-Chain Impacts

Customs is stepping up enforcement at every port of entry. Trucks must file accurate advanced manifest data or risk delays, while held cargo racks up daily storage fees with compound interest. Manufacturers supplying fasteners, fittings and components to freightliner, Volvo and other truck builders face inventory risk when rates change after entry, plus no de-minimis relief on many IEEPA tariffs.

“They will hold on to the cargo and charge you storage fees, and those storage fees are subject to compound interest… we have quite a few clients who are in manufacturing and who are dealing with parts and components. And the problem with that is even there’s no de minimis on the IEEPA tariffs.”

If rising tariffs, border delays or compliance questions are affecting your imports, exports or trucking supply chain, get expert help today.

Visit stc.ryderwork.com/ to download free resources and schedule a consultation.

Protect your business—don’t navigate 2026 tariffs alone.

February 18, 2026
Revenue Recognition and Enforcement Risk: Lessons from a Recent SEC Action
Week 2: Website News

Revenue Recognition and Enforcement Risk

Lessons from a Recent SEC Action

Overview

A recent enforcement action by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission involved allegations that a telecommunications company prematurely recognized revenue based on non-binding purchase documents and before services were delivered.

Company names are intentionally sanitized here, but the enforcement action is public.

The case demonstrates how revenue timing decisions can evolve into securities and criminal exposure when internal safeguards are bypassed.

Enforcement Risk

Alleged Conduct

According to regulators, executives:
- Recognized revenue from conditional or non-binding purchase orders
- Recorded revenue before performance obligations were satisfied
- Maintained revenue entries even when services were not delivered
- Directed staff to obtain misleading audit confirmations
Civil and criminal charges followed.

Public source:
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Press Release (2023)
https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-205

How These Cases Are Investigated

Revenue matters are typically built around comparative analysis:

1. Contractual Commitment

What legally obligated the customer to pay?

2. Operational Performance

Were services actually delivered or activated?

3. Financial Reporting Timing

When was revenue recorded relative to performance?

4. Executive Knowledge

Were internal controls overridden?
Were objections raised or suppressed?
Did communications reflect awareness of premature recognition?

The intersection of these elements often determines exposure.

Simplified Structural Diagram
Litigation-Relevant Themes

For law firms advising corporate clients, this case reinforces several themes:
- Revenue recognition decisions are discoverable risk areas.
- Quarter-end communications often become evidentiary focal points.
- Receivables trends can serve as early indicators of exposure.
- Audit confirmation integrity is critical.
- Executive certifications carry personal liability implications.
Revenue reporting issues are rarely isolated accounting disputes; they often reflect governance, culture, and control design.
Enforcement Risk

Conclusion

Revenue manipulation cases tend to follow a consistent pattern:

Performance pressure → Early recognition → Control override → Audit friction → Regulatory action.

For counsel, early forensic analysis of contract terms, operational records, and internal communications can materially shape case strategy.

Previous Article

Week 1: Website News

Third-Party Risk: The Russia Distributor Scheme
February 13, 2026
Third-Party Risk: The Russia Distributor Scheme
Week 1: Website News

Third-Party Risk: The Russia Distributor Scheme

How fictitious invoices created a $16M bribery channel

The exact scheme (anonymized from SEC enforcement)

A Denmark-based medical device manufacturer sold ultrasound scanners through Russian distributors to Russian state hospitals. Here’s how the distributors weaponized the relationship:
1. Russian distributors requested fictitious invoices at 2x normal price from Denmark
2. Denmark manufacturer issued these invoices outside normal accounts payable controls
3. Distributors overpaid, creating $16M+ excess funds sitting in Denmark accounts
4. Russian distributors directed Denmark manufacturer to wire excess to 180+ unknown third parties in Latvia/Cyprus
5. Those third parties delivered cash, gifts, overseas trips to Russian government hospital doctors who then purchased the scanners
SEC Order flow diagram

Source: SEC Administrative Order ¶22-26 (2016)[sec]

Practical Russia Distributor Framework
Phase 1:

Due Diligence (Pre-Contract)

Russia = AUTOMATIC RED FLAG STATUS
- Required enhanced due diligence:
- Ultimate beneficial ownership (beyond registry filings)
- Political exposure screening (PEP connections within 2 degrees)
- Financials + litigation history (last 5 years)
- Site visit or video verification of operations
Phase 2:

Post-Contract Audit (First 6 Months)

Mandatory within 180 days of Russia distributor contract:
- Review first 3 invoices for unusual pricing/terms
- Test ALL payment flows (customer-directed third-party wires?)
- Interview key contacts: “Describe your 3 main services to us”
- Verify bank statements match declared operations
Phase 3:

Ongoing Monitoring (Quarterly Forever)

Russia distributor red-flag testing:
- CREDIT BALANCE SCAN: You owe them money? IMMEDIATE audit
- INVOICE EXCEPTION SCAN: Non-standard terms = compliance review
- THIRD-PARTY PAYMENT SCAN: Customer-directed wires = auto-escalate
- MARGIN ANALYSIS: >30% above industry average = deep dive
Third-Party Risk

Investigation Triggers

(Do These Now)

RED LIGHT = START INVESTIGATION IMMEDIATELY
- Russia distributor + you owe them money (credit balance)
- Customer requests invoice terms outside standard process
- ANY customer-directed third-party payment requests
- Distributor margins >30% above peer average
Compliance Program Test

Ask your team:

“When was the last time we audited a Russia distributor within 6 months?” If the answer is “never” or “I don’t know,” your program has a gap.

Next week:

How quarter-end pressure turned revenue recognition into an SEC case.
February 6, 2026
Greenland, Europe, and the Risk of a Trade War

Greenland, Europe, and the Risk of a Trade War

Michelle Schulz explains why tariff threats tied to Greenland could trigger EU retaliation—and what that means for U.S. companies.

In an interview on KLIF Radio in Dallas–Fort Worth, Michelle Schulz, founder and managing partner of Schulz Trade Law, addressed escalating tensions between the United States and Europe following renewed tariff threats connected to Greenland. With the European Union openly discussing the use of its so-called “economic bazooka,” Michelle outlined how trade disputes are rapidly turning into geopolitical flashpoints—with serious consequences for U.S. businesses, exporters, and global trust.

January 20, 2026

KLIF Radio

Dallas/Fort Worth, TX

Listen

How Greenland Sparked a New Trade Flashpoint

The latest controversy stems from proposed U.S. tariffs—reportedly around 10%—on goods from several European countries following their opposition to U.S. control over Greenland. Michelle warned that this rhetoric has significantly escalated tensions.

“Yes, I believe it certainly could [lead to a trade war]. We’re hearing from both sides—there’s a lot of tension.”

According to Michelle, European officials view the proposed tariffs as punitive and coercive, prompting a coordinated response from EU leadership.

“This latest round… has really upset the European Union, and we’re seeing officials coming together and trying to find a response.”

The EU’s ‘Economic Bazooka’ and Retaliation Risk

European leaders have openly discussed deploying their Anti-Coercion Instrument—sometimes referred to as the EU’s economic bazooka—which could authorize retaliatory measures totaling more than $100 billion.

“It could be devastating. This would increase tariffs substantially on some of our biggest companies.”

Michelle noted that retaliation would likely target emblematic U.S. industries and products.

“Things like Boeing… bourbon—things that are typically U.S.—are going to be tariffed.”

Unlike traditional tariffs, the EU’s response could extend beyond goods to include services, making the potential impact broader and more severe.

Why Europe Is Taking Such a Hard Line

Michelle explained that European leaders see the Greenland issue as a matter of sovereignty and international law—not negotiation tactics.

“There’s no doubt that Greenland is a sovereign nation… there’s no right for one country to take over another country.”

She emphasized that European institutions have framed the issue as a collective defense of international norms.

“Whether it’s Ukraine, Greenland—anywhere—the European Union will stand together.”

This unified stance raises the likelihood of retaliation rather than compromise.

The Longer-Term Cost: Lost Trust and Business Flight

Beyond immediate tariffs, Michelle warned that the greatest damage may already be occurring behind the scenes.

“We’ve already lost their trust. We’re seeing companies leaving the U.S., not wanting to do business with us.”

Even if tariff threats are later withdrawn, rebuilding credibility with European partners could take years—especially as companies seek more stable jurisdictions for long-term investment.

What This Means for U.S. Businesses

For importers, exporters, and multinational companies, the Greenland episode signals a new level of trade risk—where tariffs may be imposed rapidly, tied to political objectives, and met with coordinated international retaliation.

Trade planning now requires not only legal compliance, but geopolitical awareness.

As tariffs increasingly intersect with geopolitics and diplomatic pressure, businesses need proactive strategies—not reactive fixes.

Schulz Trade Consulting helps companies assess exposure, prepare for retaliation risk, and navigate rapidly shifting trade policy with clarity and precision.

January 20, 2026
Europe, Retaliation, and the Supreme Court: Why Tariff Uncertainty Isn’t Going Away

Europe, Retaliation, and the Supreme Court

Why Tariff Uncertainty Isn’t Going Away

Michelle Schulz explains why a Supreme Court ruling won’t end tariffs—and what escalating trade tensions mean for consumers.

In an interview on WBAP Radio in Dallas–Fort Worth, Michelle Schulz, founder and managing partner of Schulz Trade Law, discussed the growing complexity of U.S. tariff policy as the Supreme Court weighs the president’s authority to impose global tariffs. With potential new tariffs on European goods and retaliatory measures already being discussed abroad, Michelle outlined why consumers and businesses should prepare for continued volatility—regardless of how the Court rules.

January 19, 2026

Morning News

WBAP Radio, Fort Worth, TX

Listen

What the Supreme Court Is Deciding—and What It Isn’t

At the center of the case before the Supreme Court of the United States are the so-called Liberation Day tariffs—baseline tariffs applied broadly under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

“The Supreme Court has only been asked to decide on… these tariffs that are under the Emergency Economic Powers Act.”

Michelle emphasized that the Court is not ruling on every tariff currently in place. Even if the IEEPA tariffs are struck down, many others will remain.

“There are other tariffs, though, that may still apply… like the steel and aluminum tariffs or the ones specific to copper and furniture.”

Why a Tariff Is Not Just ‘a Tariff’

While tariffs may seem interchangeable, Michelle explained that they are imposed under very different legal authorities—each with its own rules and vulnerabilities.

“That’s what you would think, right? A tariff’s a tariff—but they’re using all these different mechanisms.”

Some tariffs are justified under national security statutes, others under unfair trade practice laws, and still others—like the IEEPA tariffs—under emergency powers. This layered approach means that even a loss at the Supreme Court would not eliminate tariffs as a policy tool.

“Even if the IEEPA tariffs are shot down, we still will see the administration using backup plans.”

Europe, Retaliation, and the Consumer Impact

Michelle also addressed the administration’s recent suggestion of imposing new tariffs on European goods—potentially around 10%—and the likely response from the EU.

“Now the President is talking about 10% on European products, which would impact everything from cars to luxury goods.”

She warned that Europe is already signaling strong retaliation, escalating the risk of a broader trade conflict.

“The Europeans are going to fire back with their own… really strong tariff measures.”

For consumers, this means higher prices—especially for imported vehicles, specialty goods, and products sold by small and mid-sized businesses that lack the margin to absorb rising costs.

“Small to medium-sized businesses can’t sustain these high taxes on everything they bring into the country.”

What This Means Going Forward

Michelle made clear that even a favorable Supreme Court ruling would not bring immediate relief. Refunds could take time, new tariffs may follow under different statutes, and global retaliation could further drive up prices.

Tariff policy, she noted, has become faster, more fragmented, and more unpredictable than in the past.

Tariffs are no longer isolated trade measures—they are part of a rapidly shifting global and legal landscape.

Schulz Trade Consulting helps importers understand which tariffs apply, identify refund opportunities, and prepare for retaliation and regulatory change before costs spiral further.

January 20, 2026
Tariffs, Geopolitics, and Greenland: When Trade Policy Becomes a Pressure Tool

Tariffs, Geopolitics, and Greenland

When Trade Policy Becomes a Pressure Tool

Michelle Schulz weighs in on tariff threats tied to national security claims—and what they signal for global trade.

In a KNX Radio news segment out of Los Angeles, Michelle Schulz, founder and managing partner of Schulz Trade Law, commented on a surprising escalation in tariff rhetoric: the suggestion that the United States could impose tariffs on countries that resist U.S. demands related to Greenland.

The remarks come amid continued uncertainty over the Supreme Court’s pending decision on the legality of the president’s global tariffs, highlighting how trade policy is increasingly entangled with geopolitics and executive power.

January 16, 2026

KNX Radio

Los Angeles, CA

Listen

Tariffs as a Geopolitical Lever

Schulz explained that the president’s comments immediately triggered a diplomatic fallout, prompting lawmakers to intervene to de-escalate tensions.

“This statement really caused an uproar on both sides of the aisle.”

According to Michelle, a group of U.S. senators traveled to Copenhagen to calm the situation, but discussions fell short of a resolution.

“They agreed to have a working group, but we are still very much at odds.”

The episode underscores that tariffs are no longer framed solely as economic tools but are increasingly seen as instruments of foreign policy and leverage.

National Security Claims and Legal Fragility

The tariff threat was framed around national security, despite the U.S. already maintaining a military presence in Greenland. Michelle noted that this argument closely parallels the broader legal debate currently before the Supreme Court of the United States.

“It continues to get pushed out, which makes some people think they may be more likely to rule in the President’s favor.”

However, Michelle cautioned against assuming delay signals approval.

“I still think it’s less likely because of the way the laws are written.”

Her remarks reinforce a consistent theme across recent interviews: while tariff authority has expanded in practice, its legal foundation remains vulnerable.

What This Signals for Businesses and Trade Partners

For importers and multinational companies, the Greenland episode is less about the island itself and more about precedent.

If tariffs can be threatened—or imposed—as leverage in unrelated geopolitical disputes, trade risk becomes harder to predict and price.

The lack of clarity around both diplomatic outcomes and judicial review amplifies uncertainty, particularly for companies operating across borders or dependent on stable supply chains.

Trade policy is no longer driven by economics alone.

As tariffs become entwined with geopolitics, executive authority, and unresolved legal challenges, businesses must stay vigilant.

Schulz Trade Consulting helps importers and global companies assess risk, navigate sudden policy shifts, and prepare for rapid changes in the trade landscape.

January 17, 2026
Supreme Court Decision Looms: Billions in Tariff Refunds—and What Happens Next

Supreme Court Decision Looms:

Billions in Tariff Refunds—and What Happens Next

Michelle Schulz explains what’s at stake in the Supreme Court’s pending tariff ruling and how refunds could affect prices.

In a follow-up appearance on KXYL Radio, Michelle Schulz, founder and managing partner of Schulz Trade Law, discussed the Supreme Court’s expected ruling on the president’s global “Liberation Day” tariffs.

With baseline tariffs affecting nearly every imported product—and billions of dollars already collected—the Court’s decision could trigger widespread refunds, price shifts, and yet another phase of trade-policy uncertainty.

January 12, 2026

KXYL Radio

Brownwood/Coleman, TX

Listen

What’s at Stake in the Supreme Court Ruling

At the center of the case are the so-called Liberation Day tariffs—baseline 10% tariffs applied broadly to imports from almost every country.

“There is a lot at stake… it looks like billions of dollars at stake here for us importers.”

Michelle explained that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of importers, those who paid these tariffs would be entitled to refunds. Because the tariffs apply so broadly, the financial implications extend across nearly every sector of the economy.

The Rush to Be First in Line for Refunds

Anticipating a favorable ruling, major importers—including Costco—have already filed lawsuits to protect their position in what could become a massive refund process.

“A lot of them are saying, ‘I want a refund, and I want to be first in line.’”

Michelle noted that refunds will likely be processed electronically, requiring companies to have accurate import data ready to submit. Even if refunds are ordered immediately, however, the real-world process may be slow.

“The refunds should go into effect immediately, but the implementation will take a while… it could be months, if not years.”

What Refunds Could Mean for Consumers

For consumers, the outcome matters because current tariffs are directly inflating retail prices.

“We have increased tariffs on pretty much anything you might buy at a store like Costco… increasing prices up to 17% on average.”

If importers receive refunds, Michelle expects price relief to follow—at least for goods affected by the challenged tariffs.

“If Costco wins, then I believe they will be bringing their prices back down.”

Why Some Tariffs Will Stay No Matter What

Not all tariffs are part of the Supreme Court case. Michelle emphasized that sector-specific tariffs—such as those on steel, aluminum, lumber, furniture, and copper—are imposed under different legal authorities and will remain in place regardless of the ruling.

“Those sector-specific tariffs are going to stay in place… they’re under a completely different set of rules.”

Even if the Court strikes down the baseline tariffs, the president retains other statutory tools to impose duties, including national security investigations and unfair trade practice laws.

“Yes, the other statutes… will all still be available to the President.”

What Comes Next: Executive Orders and New Investigations

Michelle warned that trade policy has become increasingly fluid, with frequent executive orders and agency notices replacing slower, more formal processes.

“We’re seeing change all the time, and sometimes it’s not as formal.”

She highlighted semiconductors as a key area to watch, noting ongoing investigations and growing U.S. manufacturing investment—particularly in Texas—which could lead to new tariffs under national security frameworks.

Whether tariffs are refunded, upheld, or reimposed under new authority, uncertainty remains the defining feature of today’s trade environment.

Schulz Trade Consulting helps importers prepare for refunds, navigate executive-order changes, and ensure tariff compliance in real time.

January 12, 2026