The Supreme Court ruling that struck down the Trump administration’s tariffs imposed under an economic emergency declaration could open the door to billions of dollars in tariff refunds for businesses, though the ruling didn’t specify a process for handling those refunds.

The Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump’s tariffs enacted under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) were illegal because the underlying law doesn’t authorize the president to impose tariffs.

Striking down the tariffs sends the issue back to the lower courts, which could weigh in on the refund process. However, businesses are already able to file “post-summary corrections” with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which collects tariffs for the Department of Homeland Security that are remitted to the Treasury Department, while the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has authority over appeals.

Mike Snarr, partner at BakerHostetler and co-leader of the firm’s International Trade team, told FOX Business, “Although today’s Supreme Court opinion did not address the refund issue directly, in most cases, companies should pursue refunds through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s administrative processes.

WILL REFUNDS BE ISSUED AFTER SUPREME COURT RULING ON TRUMP TARIFFS?

The Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t outline a tariff refund process, though there are existing options for businesses that paid the tariffs. (Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images)

“For entries made within the last 10 months, importers may ask customs brokers to correct the customs declarations for refunds of recently paid IEEPA tariffs. For older entries, importers should file protests within the statutory deadlines,” Snarr added. 

“If protests are denied, importers should seek judicial review in the U.S. Court of International Trade seeking reliquidation. The CIT has expressly confirmed it has the authority to liquidate under these circumstances.”

The process of submitting and evaluating appeals for tariff refunds could prove challenging for businesses as well as the entities handling the claims and appeals due to the sheer volume of IEEPA tariffs collected from a multitude of firms since they were imposed last year.

Estimates for the amount of tariffs collected under IEEPA that are subject to possible refunds top $150 billion. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation put the figure at about $150 billion, while the Penn-Wharton Budget Model’s estimate was $175 billion. An analysis by JPMorgan suggested a range of $150 billion to $200 billion.

SUPREME COURT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP’S TRADE AGENDA IN LANDMARK TARIFF CASE

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last month that Treasury has the funds to pay tariff refunds if needed, though it may prove a lengthy process. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)

Chris Desmond, a partner in PwC’s Customs and International Trade practice, said, “Beyond the legal implications, the real challenge now is operational,” adding companies will need to “rapidly model which IEEPA tariffs may be refundable and quantify their opportunity because any refund process is likely to be highly congested.

“Customs brokers will be under significant strain, with limited capacity to manage a surge of post-summary corrections and protests across thousands of importers,” he explained. “Even where tariff refunds may be available, many companies will face internal capacity constraints. Customs and trade compliance teams are already stretched managing day-to-day filings, enforcement activity and ongoing tariff changes.”

Desmond said that, given the demands of undergoing detailed entry reviews, coordination with brokers and tight procedural deadlines, companies that “underestimate this workload risk timing delays to their financials while creating potential compliance issues if they request refunds on the wrong tariff lines.”

Tim Brightbill, co-chair of Wiley International Trade Practice Group, noted that “more than 1,000 lawsuits have already been filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade in an effort to secure tariff refunds in the event of a Supreme Court decision against the IEEPA tariffs.”

KEVIN HASSETT SAYS FED ECONOMISTS SHOULD BE ‘DISCIPLINED’ OVER TARIFF STUDY

President Donald Trump slammed the Supreme Court and said the issue of refunds may be litigated for years. (Kent Nishimura/Reuters)

Trump said at a press conference Friday that the Supreme Court’s ruling was “deeply disappointing” and criticized the high court for not addressing tariff refunds in the decision.

“I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years. So, they write this terrible defective decision, totally defective. It’s almost like not written by smart people. And what do they do, they don’t even talk about that,” Trump said.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent discussed potential tariff refunds in an interview with Reuters last month.

“It won’t be a problem if we have to do it, but I can tell you that if it happens — which I don’t think it’s going to — it’s just a corporate boondoggle,” Bessent said. “Costco, who’s suing the U.S. government, are they going to give the money back to their clients?”

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Bessent added that the process for issuing tariff refunds could take a significant amount of time, saying, “We’re not talking about the money all goes out in a day. Probably over weeks, months, may take over a year, right?”

The Ford Ranger has reclaimed its position as Australia’s best-selling vehicle in the opening month of 2026, underscoring the enduring popularity of utes and SUVs amid a market showing modest growth and shifting preferences toward electrified options and Chinese brands.

According to VFACTS data released by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, new vehicle sales totaled 87,753 in January 2026, a slight 0.1% increase from the previous year despite comparisons complicated by 2025 port strikes and biosecurity delays. SUVs commanded 61.2% of the market, light commercials held 20.5%, passenger cars 15.5% and heavy commercials the remainder.

The top 10 models for January 2026 reflect a blend of traditional favorites and rising challengers:

1. Ford Ranger — 3,403 units (down 20% year-on-year) Australia’s perennial ute king reclaimed the crown despite a dip, buoyed by its rugged capability, towing prowess and widespread appeal for work and leisure. The Ranger accounted for over half of Ford’s January sales, highlighting its dominance in the light commercial segment.
2. Toyota HiLux — 2,800 units (down 15.2%) The iconic HiLux trailed closely, impacted by the gradual rollout of its new generation. It remains a staple for tradies and rural buyers, though competition from the Ranger and emerging Chinese utes pressures its long-held status.
3. Mazda CX-5 — 2,289 units (up 22.3%) A surprise podium finisher and the top SUV, the CX-5 delivered its strongest January performance in years. The outgoing model benefits from strong demand ahead of its refresh later in 2026, appealing with refined handling, premium interior and fuel efficiency.
4. Chery Tiggo 4 — 2,234 units (up 119.4%) Chinese brands surged, with Chery’s compact SUV hitting an all-time high ranking. Aggressive pricing, generous features and growing dealer networks propelled the Tiggo 4 into the top five, signaling accelerating acceptance of Chinese vehicles.
5. Mitsubishi Outlander — 1,975 units (down 5.5%) The PHEV-equipped Outlander maintained solid momentum in the electrified space, benefiting from Australia’s rising interest in plug-in hybrids, which soared 170.5% to 5,161 units market-wide.
6. Ford Everest — 1,913 units (up 13.9%) The body-on-frame SUV outsold rivals like the Toyota Prado, offering family-friendly seating, off-road ability and diesel efficiency that resonate with Australian buyers.
7. Hyundai Kona — 1,839 units (up 41.4%) The compact crossover climbed sharply, fueled by its stylish design, tech features and hybrid/EV variants appealing to urban drivers.
8. Isuzu D-Max — 1,798 units (down 13.8%) The dependable ute held firm in the commercial segment, favored for its durability and value in fleet and rural applications.
9. GWM Haval Jolion — 1,789 units (up 39.1%) Another Chinese success story, the Jolion’s affordability and equipment levels continued to drive strong gains for GWM.
10. Toyota RAV4 — 1,757 units (down 65.4%) The former bestseller suffered as outgoing stock dwindled ahead of the new model’s March arrival, a transitional dip expected to reverse later in the year.

The list highlights key trends: utes and SUVs dominate, comprising eight of the top 10 spots. Chinese manufacturers like Chery and GWM posted explosive growth, with China-origin vehicles jumping 62.9% to claim 23.8% market share. Toyota, the overall brand leader with 14,310 sales (16.4% share), saw a 22.3% decline — its weakest in nearly three years — as models like the RAV4 transitioned.

Electrification accelerated: Battery electric vehicles rose 93.3% to 8.4% share, plug-in hybrids exploded and hybrids held steady at 17.4%. Brands like BYD surged dramatically (up 640.9% year-on-year, though from a low base affected by prior delays), climbing to sixth overall.

State variations showed resilience in Victoria (+6.3%) and New South Wales (+2.3%), while Western Australia (-12.7%) and the Northern Territory (-18.1%) lagged. Private sales edged up modestly, but short-term rentals jumped 47%, inflating the headline figure.

Analysts note the market’s resilience despite economic pressures, with SUVs’ 61% share reflecting lifestyle shifts toward versatile, family-oriented vehicles. Chinese brands’ momentum challenges established players, potentially reshaping the top 10 as more models arrive and incentives evolve.

As 2026 unfolds, expect battles in key segments: the refreshed RAV4 challenging for SUV supremacy, new HiLux variants bolstering Toyota, and continued Chinese inroads. For now, the Ford Ranger’s lead affirms Australia’s love for capable utes, while diverse powertrains signal a market in transition.

This article was written by

Follow

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) scrambled U.S. fighter jets Thursday to intercept and escort five Russian military aircraft operating in the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), a standard buffer area outside U.S. and Canadian sovereign airspace.

NORAD detected and tracked two Tu-95 Bear long-range strategic bombers, two Su-35 Flanker fighter jets and one A-50 Mainstay airborne early warning and control aircraft in the Alaskan ADIZ on Feb. 19, according to a statement released late Thursday local time, which corresponds to Friday morning in some time zones. The Russian formation remained in international airspace and did not enter American or Canadian territory.

In response, NORAD launched two F-16 Fighting Falcons, two F-35 Lightning IIs, one E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control aircraft, and four KC-135 Stratotanker refueling planes to positively identify the intruders and escort them until they departed the zone. The mission unfolded without incident, and officials emphasized that such activity is routine.

“This Russian activity in the Alaskan ADIZ occurs regularly and is not seen as a threat,” NORAD stated. The command, a binational U.S.-Canadian organization headquartered at Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado, maintains constant vigilance over North American skies and is prepared to employ various response options to defend the continent.

The Alaskan ADIZ extends hundreds of miles beyond territorial boundaries, requiring aircraft to identify themselves for security monitoring. Russian long-range aviation patrols in the Bering Sea region — separating Siberia from Alaska — have been common for decades, often coinciding with exercises or routine flights. Similar intercepts occurred multiple times in 2025, including in September when four Russian aircraft were tracked and escorted, and in April when six planes including Tu-95s, Tu-142s, Su-35s and an A-50 were intercepted.

Thursday’s encounter involved a mix of bombers capable of carrying nuclear payloads, agile fighters for escort and an A-50 for surveillance, reflecting a coordinated formation typical of Russian strategic aviation operations. The Tu-95, a propeller-driven turboprop bomber nicknamed “Bear” by NATO, dates to the Cold War era but remains a mainstay of Russia’s long-range strike capability. The supersonic Su-35 provides air superiority protection, while the A-50 serves as an airborne radar platform akin to the U.S. E-3.

U.S. aircraft involved represent a blend of legacy and fifth-generation platforms. The F-16, a multirole fighter, and the stealthy F-35, both operated by the Alaska Air National Guard’s 354th Fighter Wing at Eielson Air Force Base, handled the close escort duties. The E-3 provided command and control from aloft, and KC-135s ensured extended endurance for the interceptors.

No aggressive maneuvers or communications issues were reported, and the Russian planes departed the ADIZ as expected. NORAD did not disclose exact locations beyond the general Alaskan ADIZ, which covers vast expanses over the Bering Sea and Arctic approaches.

The incident drew quick media attention amid heightened global tensions, though military officials downplayed any provocative intent. Russian Defense Ministry spokespeople had not commented publicly as of Friday morning. Similar episodes rarely escalate, serving more as demonstrations of presence and capability testing than direct challenges.

This latest intercept aligns with patterns observed since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when NORAD noted increased Russian activity in the Arctic and near North American shores. In 2025 alone, multiple releases detailed intercepts of Tu-95/Su-35 pairs and larger formations, often in international airspace west of Alaska.

Experts view these flights as part of Russia’s effort to maintain operational readiness, project power in the Arctic — a region of growing strategic importance due to melting ice opening new shipping routes and resource opportunities — and signal resolve amid strained relations with the West.

NORAD’s response underscores the binational command’s effectiveness in aerospace warning and control. Established in 1957 during the Cold War, it integrates radar networks, fighter squadrons and command structures to detect and respond to aerial threats, from ballistic missiles to unauthorized aircraft.

Alaska’s strategic position makes it a frontline for such monitoring, with bases like Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson and Eielson hosting advanced fighters and surveillance assets. The state’s proximity to Russia — less than 55 miles separate Big Diomede Island (Russia) from Little Diomede (U.S.) in the Bering Strait — amplifies the need for vigilant patrols.
Public reaction on social platforms included a mix of concern and reassurance, with some users noting the routine nature while others highlighted geopolitical implications. NORAD’s X account posted updates emphasizing readiness without alarm.

As Arctic militarization continues — with Russia expanding bases and the U.S. bolstering presence through exercises like Arctic Edge — such encounters are likely to persist. Thursday’s event, while unremarkable in military terms, serves as a reminder of the delicate balance in polar airspace.

NORAD reiterated its commitment to sovereignty protection while characterizing the Russian activity as non-threatening and expected. No further details on flight paths or durations were released, consistent with operational security practices.