WASHINGTON — Arizona coffee roaster Gabe Hagen is wondering if he’ll ever recoup the tens of thousands of dollars he paid in tariffs to import beans from the world’s major coffee-growing regions in South America, Africa and the Indo-Pacific.

Weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs as illegal, Hagen is among an army of small business owners who are unsure if they’ll be made whole after a year of increasing costs and uncertainty.

“I’m in the process right now trying to consolidate all of my invoices … because I need the money back — if they’re going to give it back,” Hagen told States Newsroom in an interview.

“A pallet of coffee would cost us 5 to 6 to $7,000 if we had a bag or two of really high-grade in there. Post tariffs, our cheapest pallet was around $8,000, and it went anywhere from 8 to $10,000 or $11,000 per pallet of coffee,” he said. 

How the government will refund the roughly $166 billion in tariffs Trump triggered under a 1970s emergency economic powers statute is slowly coming to light in court documents. 

Nearly 2,000 companies filed suit for tariff refunds in the U.S. Court of International Trade, with many lining up even before the highly anticipated 6-3 Supreme Court decision.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s four-step refund process for businesses is anywhere from 40% to 80% complete, depending on the step, according to a court-mandated update filed March 12 with the Court of International Trade. 

Justices leave it to the lower courts

The justices, not giving guidance on refunds, left the matter to the lower courts in their Feb. 20 ruling that invalidated the sweeping tariffs Trump unilaterally imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. 

The president declared various emergencies under the statute during his first year in office. 

From fentanyl smuggling, to trade imbalances, to political disputes, he used each declared crisis to impose steep taxes on imports. 

Shifting sometimes day to day, tariffs reached as high as 50% on Brazilian and Indian goods after Trump declared emergencies over the prosecution of a political ally and over the use of Russian oil, respectively.

U.S. importers saw tariffs spike as high as 145% on Chinese goods during a tit-for-tat trade war sparked by Trump’s declaration of a trade imbalance emergency. The duties largely settled at a roughly 50% effective rate on several products after the trade war and negotiations with the world’s second-largest economy. 

The Trump administration has since sought different pathways to collect tariffs, including almost immediately instituting temporary import taxes under a different 1970s trade statute. 

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has also commenced widespread investigations into dozens of the largest U.S. trading partners that could trigger new tariffs, depending on findings.

‘Survived, but barely’

The rollercoaster ride was enough to almost bring down Busy Baby, a Minnesota-based baby product company that manufactures several patented designs in China.

Busy Baby owner Beth Benike, who shared her experience with States Newsroom in February, is now suing U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to recoup money lost.

Matthew Platkin, former New Jersey attorney general and Benike’s lawyer, said Benike’s business “survived, but barely.” 

“She had to keep merchandise overseas because she couldn’t afford to pay to bring them here. And when she didn’t get product, she wasn’t getting paid, she wasn’t making money,” Platkin said in an interview with States Newsroom.  

“She had opportunities lined up for expansion. She was going to hire new folks. That didn’t happen, and that was because of one thing: the president’s illegal tariffs,” he said.

Benike’s complaint does not specify a dollar amount, but Platkin said, “It’s substantial, especially for a business of her size.”

“We’re still going through and assessing the full impact of the tariffs on her, but rest assured, even for a small business, it’s tens of thousands of dollars at a minimum,” Platkin said.

“The federal government should just refund these folks their money with interest, period. Like, this shouldn’t even require litigation. They were caught taking illegal tariffs from millions of businesses,” he said.

$166 billion collected

Federal Judge Richard Eaton, who sits on the bench for the Court of International Trade, ordered administration customs officials in early March to stop collecting the tariffs deemed illegal under IEEPA, and to recalculate any past duties that included them.

Eaton granted the March 5 order in the tariff refund lawsuit brought by Atmus Filtration, a Nashville, Tennessee-based company. 

The judge, however, outlined that orders in the Court of International Trade are “universal” for all tariff refunds owed — meaning the trade cases are not subject to the Supreme Court’s 2025 finding in a separate immigration case that universal rulings are impermissible.

Businesses the size of Busy Baby to behemoths like Costco and FedEx have paid tariffs to the U.S. government. Many, but not all, have sued.

Customs officials, in a March 6 court filing, declared any refund process would take at least 45 days to be functional. According to the filing, as of early March the agency had collected approximately $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs from 330,000 American importers.

Alfredo Carrillo Obregon, research associate for trade policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said as the clock ticks on tariff refunds, interest is accruing.

“The refunds are not necessarily coming soon and that has big implications, obviously, for taxpayers, but I think most importantly for the companies that are relying on this money to literally keep their doors open,” Obregon said.

He and colleagues calculated the government’s interest payments on the refunds owed totals about $700 million more with each passing month.

Barton O’Brien, who told States Newsroom last month his dog apparel company ate the tariff costs rather than raise prices, said he’s “certainly not counting on a refund anytime soon” as the administration “seems pretty dead set” on not giving them.

“I expect they will drag out the process in the courts for as long as they can,” he said in a written response to States Newsroom on March 9. “If we get one, great… It’s a bonus. But still won’t cover the hole left by the tariffs.” 

“Also, as a small business we’re not in a position to fight the administration, so I’m happy to sit back and let … other Fortune 500 companies with an army of lawyers fight this one out on our behalf.  If they win, we’ll all get refunds,” said O’Brien, who works with manufacturers in China and India.

‘Do the right thing’

Shawn Phetteplace, national campaigns director for the advocacy group Main Street Alliance, said his organization will continue to apply legal and public pressure to ensure small businesses recoup the money.

“I would just say that the administration should do the right thing and return the money, and they also should stop trying to find cute, creative ways to institute new tariffs that are also going to be illegal and struck down,” he said.

Two dozen Democratic-led states have already sued the administration in the Court of International Trade over the new tariffs Trump announced immediately after his Supreme Court loss. 

The lawsuit, led by Oregon, also includes Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

Small businesses and Democratic-led states were instrumental in the Supreme Court’s February decision striking down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs.

States Newsroom reached out to the Trump administration for comment but did not receive a reply.

WASHINGTON — Aluminum cans rolling off Virginia cider maker Tristan Wright’s production line cost more because of increased tariffs on aluminum.

Minnesota baby product inventor and seller Beth Benike ran out of inventory and lost income for months last year when President Donald Trump sparked a trade war with China.

Maryland dog apparel producer Barton O’Brien pulled the plug on a new line of Irish-style fisherman sweaters. Importing from his manufacturers in India became unfeasible.

Pennsylvania glass and ceramic decorator Walt Rowen worries about his tariff bill each time he replenishes stock.

“If there’s one thing that’s universal in business, no matter what you’re doing, it’s that stability and calmness create a positive market,” said Rowen, a third-generation owner of Susquehanna Glass Company in eastern Pennsylvania.

But many small business owners feel anything but calm since Trump began his whiplash trade policy shortly upon starting his second term. And now they are waiting on the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been mulling since November what was supposed to be an expedited opinion on whether large shares of the president’s unilateral emergency tariffs are legal. 

The Supreme Court is not scheduled to release opinions again until Feb. 20.

In a tariff impact survey to roughly 3,000 small business members from June to November 2025, the advocacy group Main Street Alliance found that 81.5% indicated they may raise prices to offset tariff costs, 41.7% reported they would delay business expansion and 31.5% said employee layoffs were likely if tariff rates remained unchanged. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated as of August that Trump’s tariff policies will cost America’s roughly 236,000 small businesses about $200 billion annually.

Tariffs are taxes paid by U.S. importers to U.S. Customs and Border Protection on goods purchased from abroad. 

Trump tariffs pass one-year mark

Trump began using the novel approach of imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, just over a year ago. 

As the first president to use the 1970s emergency statute to trigger import taxes, Trump slapped duties in February 2025 on products from Canada, Mexico and China, pointing to a crisis of illicit fentanyl smuggling. 

He next targeted global imports in April with a universal 10% import tax, adding varying “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from numerous trading partners — all due to his declared emergency on trade deficits.

A handful of small business owners, led by a New York-based wine and spirits importer, sued and won in two lower courts.

Trump appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted an expedited case.

The justices grilled the government and lawyers for the small businesses in early November on whether the president legally used the statute — which does not include the word tariffs — and if his presidential power extends to unilaterally upending trade policy.

The arguments attracted rare appearances in the courtroom from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other Cabinet members.

The case outcome will only apply to the import taxes the president imposed under his declared emergencies. Sectoral tariffs on imports on metals, critical minerals and pharmaceuticals, put in place by Trump because of national security concerns or unfair trade practices, will remain.

“We’ve been waiting on it. Nobody’s sure what really is going to happen — are they going to decide one way or another, and then what will happen?” Rowen said.

Rowen’s company, among other things, sandblasts and laser engraves glassware, mugs and tumblers found in winery tasting rooms, on restaurant tables and in university gift shops. 

“If they decide that the president’s policies are legal, then we’re stuck where we’re at. Potentially, he might become emboldened to do even more. If they decide that (he) can’t then what happens? What happens to all the money that’s already been set aside?” Rowen asked.

Trump promises on tariffs

The Trump administration hails the tariffs as a windfall for the country. He’s promised the customs duties collected from U.S. businesses and other importers will, in part, help the country crawl out of its nearly $39 trillion debt. 

Trump has also said tariffs will bring factories back to U.S. soil, provide for $2,000 dividend checks to taxpayers and even offset the cost of child care.

The import taxes pulled in $195 billion in 2025, up from $77 billion in 2024. 

So far for fiscal year 2026, which began Oct. 1, the government has earned about $118 billion in tariffs, according to the U.S. Treasury monthly statement through Jan 31, though the report does not delineate between emergency and sectoral tariffs.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates roughly 41% of tariffs collected last year were due to those imposed under IEEPA. The office projects if tariffs are left in place, revenue will jump to $418 billion in 2026 — exceeding corporate income tax receipts for the first time since the 1930s, a high-water mark for levies on imports.

Wright, founder and president of Lost Boy Cider in Alexandria, Virginia, said the administration is “literally banking the future of the country on the tariffs.”

“They don’t have another way of getting us out of this debt situation (and) you can point all the fingers you want over the last couple of decades,” he said.

While Wright has not had to directly pay tariffs, he’s shelled out more and more money for the aluminum cans that hold his specialty cider. China is, by far, the world’s largest aluminum producer.

“We work with a lot of people that purchase internationally because they can’t get the products here. And I understand it. You know, some point in five, 10,15 years from now, maybe we have 16 aluminum plants in the country. But you don’t just snap your fingers and, like, create an aluminum plant,” Wright told States Newsroom during an interview at his cidery.

Costs to households

Economists argue that while tariffs have raised revenue, they hurt the economy by shrinking business growth and reducing consumers’ purchasing power.

“You can’t do partial accounting. How much additional income growth and business income growth did you not get because of the tariffs?” Wayne Winegarden, an economist with the pro-growth Pacific Research Institute, told States Newsroom.

“If you wanted to raise taxes, there are ways of doing it that would be less obstructive to the economy than imposing tariffs,” he said.

The Tax Foundation estimates the president’s tariffs will cost households roughly $1,300 in 2026.

“If you have $100 to spend on groceries every week and the price of coffee goes up by like $5, your grocery budget doesn’t magically increase to $105 to pay for the higher coffee price. Instead, you’re forced to make trade-offs. If I want to buy the coffee, then that means I have $5 less to spend,” said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy for the think tank, which advocates for business growth.

O’Brien, owner of the Annapolis, Maryland-based Baydog company, said he boosted his inventory of woven collars manufactured in India and dog harnesses from China to get ahead of the tariff costs.

“I have been forced, as a business owner, to borrow money and tie up all that cash in product,” he said.

“If I look at other dog harness manufacturers, the prices have gone up everywhere. We have chosen not to raise prices, but to take that money out of our own pocket. So instead of everybody paying five bucks more for a dog harness, basically everyone at Baydog makes less money, myself included,” he said in an interview with States Newsroom.

Benike, who owns 15 patents for specialty baby products including silicone dining trays with attachments for toys and sippy cups, said she had to lay off her brother and forfeit her own paycheck last year.

The owner of Busy Baby told States Newsroom in an early February interview that she delayed a shipping container of her product from China’s Guangdong province, in case the Supreme Court ruled Trump’s emergency tariffs were illegal.

“I was holding off on shipping it until that decision was made, because the difference would have been $40,000 for me,” she said.

She had to pull the trigger in mid-January as the Supreme Court continued deliberating and she began running out of product.

“I have a container that should be sitting at the port. It should be clearing customs, hopefully, like as we speak, so I’ll have a tariff bill to pay,” Benike said.

The following day she emailed to say she didn’t realize Trump had lowered the fentanyl emergency tariff on China last year during negotiations. 

“​​So my final tariff ended up being 10% less than I expected. YAY!” she wrote.

The big ‘what if’

Shawn Phetteplace, national campaigns director for Main Street Alliance, said the advocacy organization is preparing to help its network of small business members if the Supreme Court strikes down the emergency tariffs. 

“My understanding is that the things that can be done to get people’s money back is either some type of class action lawsuit, so that it forces customs and government to essentially refund the dollars,” Phetteplace said in an interview with States Newsroom. “But that process will take quite a bit of time. The other option is for individual businesses to sue the government and to recoup those costs.”

O’Brien said of the delay, “The Supreme Court has proven they can issue decisions very quickly when they want to. Every day that goes by, they’re making the mess bigger.”

In a response to States Newsroom, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in an emailed statement, “President Trump promised to bring prosperity back to Main Street with an America First agenda that benefits every small business, just as he did in his first term.” 

“In addition to slashing regulations and lowering energy costs, the Trump administration signed the largest Working Families Tax Cut in history to unleash unprecedented growth for small businesses with a permanent 20% tax deduction and full expensing of equipment investments,” according to Rogers’ statement.