Small business owners across the United States have expressed skepticism that they will ever receive refunds after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down large parts of Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime in a landmark ruling.
The court’s decision potentially allows up to $175 billion (£137 billion) in refunds to companies that paid import duties under the controversial policy. But many business owners say the legal and administrative complexities involved in applying for these refunds could make the process unduly difficult, especially for smaller businesses already burdened by rising costs.
The tariffs, which targeted a wide range of imported goods as part of the former president’s “Liberation Day” trade policy, had sharply increased material and product costs for companies that rely on global supply chains.
Although the ruling has opened the door to claims for damages, Trump himself acknowledged that the matter could remain mired in litigation for “five more years,” leaving thousands of companies uncertain about whether seeking refunds is even worth it.
For many small businesses, the economic damage caused by tariffs is already being felt in higher costs, lower margins and delayed investment plans.
Elizabeth Vitanza, who runs a lighting and home furnishings business in Los Angeles with her husband, John Ballon, said the impact has been felt by almost every brand they work with.
“All the modern brands we carry have increased prices by at least 12 percent in the past year,” she said. “None of this is pro-economic or pro-American.”
When Trump won re-election in 2024, the couple tried to protect their business by rushing through a major contract with a Swedish partner to avoid applicable tariffs.
Despite the attempt, the shipment was still subject to the new tariffs.
“We ended up paying a five-figure tariff bill,” said Ballon. “The money we had earmarked for showroom renovations and possibly increasing staff salaries suddenly had to cover unexpected import taxes.”
The couple said the experience forced them to rethink their expansion plans.
“Why would anyone start a business now?” Vitza asked. “If I didn’t already have an established business, I wouldn’t be doing it.”
There are similar reports in other sectors of rising costs associated with tariffs on imported raw materials and components.
A furniture maker in Texas said the policy has driven up the price of imported lumber and specialty cabinet hardware that cannot be sourced domestically.
The company had little choice but to pass the costs on to customers.
“These materials are simply not made in the United States,” the owner said, requesting anonymity. “When tariffs increase these costs, we either raise prices or absorb the loss.”
Minnesota-based outdoor gear company Granite Gear experienced a similar shock.
Manager Rob Coughlin said the company had faced near-constant uncertainty since the tariffs were imposed.
Before the policy was implemented, Granite Gear paid an 18 percent import duty on certain goods. When the new tariffs were introduced, the rate rose to 46 percent, before it was later reduced to 20 percent following trade negotiations with Vietnam.
The rapid changes made pricing decisions almost impossible.
“When the products shipped, we didn’t even know what the cost would be,” Coughlin said. “How do you go to the dealer with a price list if you don’t know what rates you’ll pay?”
Ultimately, the company increased prices by 10 to 20 percent to offset the additional costs.
In contrast to larger brands, smaller companies have significantly less negotiating power when dealing with retailers, according to Coughlin.
“Large companies can push back on price increases. Smaller brands like us simply don’t have that influence.”
The tariffs also placed a significant financial burden on companies in niche industries.
Dr. Charlie Elrod, founder of a natural animal health products company, said tariffs on Brazilian imports alone increased costs by about $1 million last year.
For months, the company tried to absorb the additional costs instead of passing them on to customers.
However, it was ultimately forced to increase prices by 5 percent.
“That helped a little bit,” Elrod said, “but the profitability definitely went down.”
Following the Supreme Court ruling, more than 1,000 companies have filed lawsuits seeking reimbursement of tariffs they claim were imposed illegally.
In a related development, a U.S. trade court judge recently ordered the federal government to begin processing billions of dollars in refunds to importers affected by the invalidated tariffs.
However, the practical path to recovering this money remains unclear.
Many companies say the complexity of making a claim and the associated legal costs could outweigh any potential recovery.
Vitanza said her company tracks customs payments carefully in case they decide to file a claim.
“We keep a spreadsheet so one day we have everything ready when we apply for reimbursement,” she said. “But we don’t expect it.”
Howard Trenholme, owner of a bakery and cafe in Moab, Utah, said the legal complexities make reimbursement unrealistic.
“For an end user buying through multiple suppliers, the process would be incredibly complicated,” he said. “The legal fees alone could wipe out any refund.”
Granite Gear’s Coughlin came to a similar conclusion.
“When I compare the refund I might receive to the legal costs involved, it’s just not worth the risk,” he said.
“I’m not going to try to demand anything. It would probably be a waste of time and money.”
Even after the court ruling, the legacy of collective bargaining policy continues to impact business planning across the country.
Companies that once relied on stable global supply chains now face a far more uncertain trading environment, with shifting tariffs and geopolitical tensions making long-term decisions difficult.
For many small businesses, this experience has shown how vulnerable they are to abrupt changes in government trade policy.
While the Supreme Court decision theoretically opens the door to billions of dollars in repayments, business owners say the practical reality is that many of them may never see that money.
For businesses already reeling from rising costs and economic uncertainty, the priority now is simply to stay afloat — not to engage in a potentially years-long legal battle to recoup past losses.
