Key takeaways:

• • • Only IEEPA‑based tariffs are up for refund — Refunds will flow electronically to importers of record through ACE, the government’s digital import/export system, but only once CBP’s process is finalized.

    • Liquidation and protest timelines are now critical — An organization’s tax concepts that directly influence which entries are eligible and how long companies have to protect claims.

    • Tax functions must quickly coordinate with other corporate functions — In-house tax teams need to coordinate with their organization’s trade, procurement, and accounting functions to gather data, assert entitlement, and get the financial reporting right on any tariff refunds.

WASHINGTON, DC — When the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling on President Donald J. Trump’s authority to impose mass tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February it set the stage for what it to come.

The Court ruled the president did not have authority under IEEPA to impose the tariffs that generated an estimated $163 billion of revenue in 2025. In response, the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a ruling in requiring the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to issue refunds on IEEPA duties for entries that have not gone final. That order, however, is currently suspended while CBP designs the refund process and the government considers an appeal.

At��the recent , tax experts discussed what this ruling means for corporate tax departments, outline what is and isn’t a consideration for refunds and the steps necessary to apply for refunds.

As panelists explained, the key issue for tax departments is that only IEEPA tariffs are in scope for refund — many other tariffs remain firmly in place. For example, on steel, aluminum, and copper; Section 301 tariffs on certain Chinese-origin goods; and new of 10% to 15% on most imports still apply and will continue to shape effective duty rates and supply chain costs.

So, which entities can actually get their money back?

Legally, CBP will send refunds only to the importer of record, and only electronically through the government’s digital import/export system, known as the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system. That means every potential claimant needs an with current bank information on file. And creating an account or updating it can be a lengthy process, especially inside a large organization.

If a business was not the importer of record but had tariffs contractually passed through to it — for example, by explicit tariff clauses, amended purchase orders, or separate line items on invoices — they may still have a commercial basis to recover their share from the importer. In practice, that means corporate tax teams should sit down with both the organization’s procurement experts and its largest suppliers to identify tariff‑sharing arrangements and understand what actions those importers are planning to take.

Why liquidation suddenly matters to tax leaders

As said, the Atmus ruling is limited to entries that are not final, which hinges on the . CBP typically has one year to review an entry and liquidate it (often around 314 days for formal entries) with some informal entries liquidating much sooner.

Once an entry liquidates, the 180‑day protest clock starts. Within that window, the importer of record can challenge CBP’s decision, and those protested entries may remain in play for IEEPA refunds. There is also a 90‑day window in which CBP can reliquidate on its own initiative, raising questions about whether final should be read as 90 days or 180 days — clearly, an issue that will matter a lot if your company is near those deadlines.

Data, controversy risk & financial reporting

The role of in-house tax departments in the process of getting refunds requires, for starters, giving departments access to entry‑level data showing which imports bore IEEPA tariffs between February 1, 2025, and February 28, 2026. If a business does not already have robust trade reporting, the first step is to confirm whether the business has made payments to CBP; and, if so, to work with the company’s supply chain or trade compliance teams to access ACE and run detailed entry reports for that period.

Summary entries and heavily aggregated data will be a challenge because CBP has indicated that refund claims will require a declaration in the ACE system that lists specific entries and associated IEEPA duties. Expect controversy pressure: As claims scale up, CBP resources and the courts could see backlogs. If that becomes the case, tax teams should be prepared for protests, documentation requests, and potential litigation over entitlement and timing.

On the financial reporting side, whether and when to recognize a refund depends on the strength of the legal claim and the status of the proceedings. If tariffs were listed as expenses as they were incurred, successful refunds may give rise to income recognition. In cases in which tariffs were capitalized into fixed assets, however, the accounting analysis becomes more nuanced and may implicate asset basis, depreciation, and potentially transfer pricing positions.

Coordination between an organization’s financial reporting, tax accounting, and transfer pricing specialists is critical in order that customs values, income tax treatment, and any refund‑related credits remain consistent.

Action items for corporate tax departments

Corporate tax teams do not need to become customs experts overnight, but they do need to lead a coordinated response. Practically, that means they should:

• • • confirm whether their company was an importer of record and, if so, ensure ACE access and banking information are in place now, not after CBP turns the refund system on.
    • map which entries included IEEPA tariffs, identify which are non‑liquidated or still within the 180‑day protest window, and file protests where appropriate to protect the company’s rights.
    • inventory all tariff‑sharing arrangements with suppliers, assess contractual entitlement to pass‑through refunds, and align with procurement and legal teams on a consistent recovery approach.
    • work with accounting to determine the financial statement treatment of potential refunds, including whether and when to recognize contingent assets or income and any knock‑on effects for transfer pricing and valuation.

If tax departments wait for complete certainty from the courts before acting, many entries may go final and fall out of scope. The opportunity for tariff refunds will favor companies that are data‑ready, cross‑functionally aligned, and willing to move under time pressure.

You can find out more about the changing tariff situation here

Key takeaways:

• • • Violence against judges is escalating — Targeted shootings, coordinated harassment campaigns, and threats that now routinely follow judges to their homes and families.

    • The rhetoric driving the escalation is coming from the highest levels of government — The absence of any public denunciation from the Department of Justice is highlighting the source of the problem.

    • Will the violence itself become part of judicial rulings? — The endgame of judicial intimidation isn’t that judges stop ruling, it’s that the threat of violence becomes a silent presence in the deliberation itself.

NEW YORK — Those attendees who came to the recent�� to talk about AI, agentic workflows, and the business of legal technology, also were treated to a session that will likely stay with attendees and had nothing to do with AI.

In that session, four federal judges took the stage; but they were not there to talk about pricing models or AI adoption. They were there to talk about staying alive.

Setting the stage

Jason Wareham, CEO of IPSA Intelligent Systems and a former U.S. Marine Corps judge advocate, introduced the session — a panel of four sitting United States District Court judges — by speaking of how the rule of law once seemed resolute, yet how that faith in that has been shaken, year after year. He worked hard to frame his observations as nonpartisan, a matter of institutional fragility rather than political allegiance. It was a generous framing, but it was one that would not survive the weight of the ensuing discussion.

The Honorable Esther Salas of the District of New Jersey said that the reason she was there has a name. On July 19, 2020, a disgruntled, extremist attorney who had a case before her court arrived at her home during a birthday celebration. He shot and killed her twenty-year-old son, Daniel Anderl. He shot and critically wounded her husband. She has spent the years since on a mission to protect her judicial colleagues from the same fate.

The new normal

Next, the Honorable Kenly Kiya Kato of the Central District of California described what has changed. Judges’ rulings are still based on the Constitution, on precedent, and on the facts; but what’s different is the small voice in the back of a judge’s head. That voice, often coming after a judge issued a decision that they now have to fight against, asks: What will happen after this? It is now expected, Judge Kato explained, that a high-profile order will bring threats. When two colleagues in her district issued prominent decisions, her first thought was for their safety. That is not how it has been historically.

The Honorable Mia Roberts Perez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania asked how we got here, pointing to language from the highest levels of government: judges called monsters, a U.S. Department of Justice declaring war on rogue judges, and recently politicians bringing justice’s families into the conversation.

Judge Salas pushed even further. She acknowledged the instinct to frame the problem as bipartisan, but said the current moment is not apples to apples. It is apples to watermelons. The spike in threats since 2015, she argued, traces directly to rhetoric from political leaders using language never before deployed against the bench.

The federal judiciary is looking to break annual records for threats [against judges], and there is an absence of any public denunciation from the Attorney General or the DOJ.

The evidence is not abstract, nor are the victims, and the panel walked through it. Judge John Roemer of Wisconsin, zip-tied to a chair and assassinated in his home. Associate Judge Andrew Wilkinson of Maryland shot dead in his driveway while his family was inside. Judge Steven Meyer of Indiana and his wife Kimberly, shot through their own front door after attackers first posed as a food delivery, then returned days later claiming to have found the couple’s dog. Judge Meyer has just undergone his fifth surgery since the attack.

All of these incidents happened at the judges’ homes.

Judge Salas then played a voicemail, one of thousands that federal judges receive. It was less than 30 seconds long, but it did not need to be longer. While names had been redacted, what remained was a torrent of threats and obscenities, graphic, sexual and violent, delivered with the confidence of someone who does not expect consequences. Some judges receive hundreds of these after a single ruling, often from people with no case before them at all.

The shadow over the courts

Throughout the session, there was a presence the panelists circled but rarely named directly. A shadow that shaped every observation about escalating threats, every reference to rhetoric from the top down, every mention of language never before used by political leaders, of action or inaction the likes of which would have been unthinkable just several years ago. The specifics were spoken. The name, largely, was not.

It didn’t have to be.

Judge Kato said that what was perhaps the most disheartening aspect of all this is that these threats are getting worse. The people who know better are not doing better. Indeed, she said her children think about these problems every day. What will happen to mom today? Will someone come to the house? These are questions children should not have to carry. They did not sign up for this, and neither did the judges.

In 2026, Judge Salas noted, the federal judiciary is looking to break annual records for threats. She also noted the absence of any public denunciation from the Attorney General or the DOJ. The silence, she said, says a lot.

Not surprisingly, the implications extend beyond the judges themselves. As Judge Salas noted, if judges have to weigh their safety alongside the law, ordinary people don’t stand a chance. If one party is stronger, better funded, or more willing to threaten, then the scales tip.

That is the endgame of judicial intimidation. It’s not that judges stop ruling, but that the violent and the powerful — indeed, the people least fit to hold the scales — can tilt them at will.

That concern echoed an earlier warning from Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Judge Mehalchick said that judicial intimidation feeds on misunderstanding. When the public no longer grasps why judges must be insulated from pressure or conversely, mistakes independence for partisanship, the threat environment becomes easier to justify, easier to ignore, and harder to reverse.

What is perhaps the most disheartening aspect of all this is that these threats are getting worse, and the people who know better are not doing better.

In his 2024 year-end report, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts identified four threats to judicial independence: violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy lawfully entered judgements. The panel discussed this report as prophecy fulfilled. Public confidence in the judiciary has plummeted since 2021, and the reasons are complex. The judges insisted they are still doing their jobs the right way, but the violence is spreading anyway.

What survives

Judge Salas asked the audience to watch their thoughts. Are they negative and destructive, or positive and uplifting? Can we start loving more? She ended by sending love and light to everyone in the room.

The judges were visibly emotional on the stage.

The words were beautiful. They were also, in the context of everything that had just been described — the killings, the voicemails, the zip ties, the pizza deliveries masking a threat under a murdered son’s name — resting in a shadow that no amount of love and light could fully dispel on their own.

The room responded with a standing ovation.

Thousands of people came to Legalweek 2026 to talk about the future of legal technology. For one morning, four judges reminded them that none of it matters if the people charged with administering justice cannot do so safely.

So, while the billable hour may survive and the associate will adapt, the harder question, the one that should keep the legal industry awake at night, is whether the bench will hold.

You can find more of��our coverage of Legalweek events��here

Key takeaways:

• • • Companies should act fast on refunds — Companies that paid IEEPA-based duties have potential refund claims, but statutory deadlines are ticking. Business leaders should map exposure, quantify opportunities, and file protective claims now.

    • Remember, other tariffs still apply — This decision only invalidated IEEPA-based tariffs. Tariffs based on Sections 232, 301, and 122 of the 1974 Trade Act��remain in force, and the administration is already signaling plans for new global tariffs.

    • Businesses should update their financial models — Tariff refunds flow through cost of goods sold, which affects taxable income and effective tax rates. Business leaders should review their transfer pricing models and contracts to determine which parties receive refund proceeds.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling striking down the tariffs that the Trump Administration based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) creates immediate refund opportunities for businesses that paid billions of dollars in now-invalidated duties. However, the administration’s pivot to alternative tariff authorities means the trade policy landscape is shifting rather than settling.

Now, corporate tax and trade leaders must move quickly to preserve refund claims while building resilient strategies for the next wave of tariff changes that are already fully in motion.

What actually happened

In , the Supreme Court said last month that President Donald J. Trump went too far by using the IEEPA — a statute designed for genuine national emergencies — to impose broad, peacetime tariffs. The Court’s message was blunt: If you want sweeping tariff authority, get the U.S. Congress to give it to you explicitly — IEEPA doesn’t cut it.

This ruling invalidated the tariffs that relied solely on IEEPA, including certain reciprocal global duties and some measures targeting Canada, Mexico, and China. However, here’s the catch: Other tariff regimes — such as those outlined in Sections 232, 301, and 122 of the Trade��Act��of��1974��— are still standing. Those weren’t touched by this decision, and they’re not going away.

Check out����for more on the Supreme Court’s tariff decision here

Further, the administration isn’t sitting still either. There’s already talk of pivoting to Section 122 to impose a new 10% global tariff. So, while one door closed, another may be opening, which means the legal landscape is shifting, not settling.

Why this matters right now

There are several important factors to consider in the wake of this decision, including:

Start with the money — If your company paid IEEPA-based duties, your effective tariff rate on many imports just dropped. That , changes your margin picture, and could shift pricing dynamics across the retail, consumer goods, manufacturing, and automotive sectors.

Then there’s the refund potential — Billions of dollars were collected under tariffs that are now unlawful. The government won’t write checks automatically — indeed, the administration has already signaled it will fight broad refund claims — but for individual companies, the cash at stake could be significant.

Don’t overlook your contracts — Many commercial agreements include tariff pass-through clauses, price adjustments, and indemnities. Those provisions will determine which parties actually gets the money: the importer of record, the customer, or someone else in the chain. If you restructured your supply chain around the old tariff regime, you may need to rethink those decisions, too.

What businesses should do first

There are several steps business leaders should undertake to move forward in this new environment, including:

Map your exposure — Tax and trade teams need to pull multi-year import data by Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code, country of origin, and legal authority. Figure out which entries were hit specifically by IEEPA-based tariffs, as opposed to Section 232 or 301 duties, which again, are still in effect.

Quantify the opportunity — Calculate total IEEPA duties paid by entity, jurisdiction, and period. Include a rough estimate of interest, prioritize the highest-value lanes, and flag any statutory deadlines for protests or post-summary corrections. Missing a deadline isn’t something you can easily fix later.

Preserve your rights — If you’ve already filed test cases or joined class actions, revisit your strategy with counsel. If you haven’t, evaluate quickly whether to file protests, post-summary corrections, or other protective claims with the U.S. Customs & Border Protection. These procedures will evolve, of course, but the clock already is ticking.

Get the right people in the room — This isn’t just a tax problem or a trade compliance problem. Stand up a cross-functional working group that includes tax, customs, legal, finance, supply chain, and investor relations. Agree on who owns what, how you’ll share data, and how you’ll communicate, especially if the refund could move the needle on earnings or liquidity.

Financial reporting and tax implications

Most importantly, you need to reassess your tariff-related balances and disclosures. If refunds are probable and you can estimate them, that may affect liabilities, expense recognition, and reserves. Even if the accounting is murky, material claims may need to be discussed in your report’s Management’s Discussion & Analysis (MD&A) section or in footnotes.

On the tax side, tariff refunds and lower ongoing duties flow through cost of goods sold (COGS), which changes taxable income and your business’s effective tax rate. Timing matters: When you recognize a refund for book purposes may not match when it hits for tax, creating temporary differences that need Accounting Standards Codification 740 analysis.

And don’t forget transfer pricing. Many intercompany pricing models were built during the high-tariff period and may embed those costs in tested party margins. If tariffs fall or refunds materialize, those models and the supporting documentation may need updates. Review intercompany agreements that allocate customs and tariff costs to make sure they align with both the economics and the legal entitlement to possible refunds.

Think beyond the refund

Yes, the immediate focus is on getting your company’s money back and staying compliant — but this is also a moment in which more strategic thinking is required, including:

Run scenarios — Business show run their models to see what happens if IEEPA tariffs disappear and aren’t fully replaced. Model what happens if a broad 10% global tariff lands under Section 122. Model what happens if country- or sector-specific measures expand. For each scenario, stress-test your gross margin, cash flow, and key supply chain nodes.

Revisit your sourcing strategy — Some nearshoring or supplier diversification moves you made under the old tariff structure may no longer make sense. Others may still be smart as a hedge against renewed trade tensions. The tax team needs to be part of these conversations — not just because tariffs affect cost, but because new structures reshape your effective global tax rate, foreign tax credit position, and your base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) exposure.

Fix your data and governance — Trade policies can move fast and unpredictably. If you can’t quickly pull clean import data, run classification reviews, or model your exposure across scenarios, then you’re simply flying blind. Now is a good time to fix that.

The bottom line

The Supreme Court’s decision closed one chapter of the president’s tariff story, but it didn’t end it. For corporate tax and trade leaders, the message is straightforward: Grab the refund opportunity, protect your position, and use this moment to build a more resilient strategy for whatever comes next.

Because if there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s that the next round of tariff changes is already on its way.

For more on the impact of tariffs on global trade, you can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s recent 2026 Global Trade Report��here

Key insights:

• • • The Supreme Court decisively limited presidential tariff power under IEEPA—The decision held that the statute’s authority to “regulate importation” does not include the power to impose tariffs, especially absent clear congressional authorization for actions of major economic significance.

    • The ruling creates major uncertainty around refunds of already‑paid IEEPA tariffs— There is more than $175 billion potentially at stake and no clear, orderly mechanism yet for determining who is entitled to refunds or how they will be administered.

    • Tariffs are not ending but shifting to slower, more constrained legal authorities — As the administration pivots to statutes like Sections 232 and 301 that impose procedural hurdles and limits, it is likely to result in continued trade volatility rather than relief for businesses.

In a 6–3 ruling handed down February 20 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize President Donald Trump to impose tariffs. For businesses that have spent the past year navigating a dizzying storm of rate changes, exemptions, and modifications — sometimes shifting within days of each other — the ruling offers a measure of vindication.

However, don’t exhale just yet. The decision is likely to produce more confusion and instability in the near term, not less. The IEEPA tariffs may be legally dead, but the trade policy fight is very much alive, the refund process is an open question, and the administration is already pivoting to Plan B. For businesses trying to plan around a coherent trade regime, the ground has shifted again — it just shifted in a different direction.

Shortly after the announcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling, President Trump announced that his is planning to invoke new trade authorities and potentially levy new, across-the-board tariff on US trading partners. As of press time, the White House declined further comment but had tentatively scheduled a news conference for later Friday afternoon.

Here’s what happened, what it means, and what comes next.

The Court’s ruling

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, framed the case around a simple but consequential question: Can two words — regulate and importation, separated by 16 other words in IEEPA’s text — support President Trump’s claim to his ability to impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope on imports from any country?

The answer, from the Court’s majority is No.

The Court’s reasoning proceeded along two tracks. First, three justices — Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — invoked the major questions doctrine, the principle being that executive actions of vast economic and political significance require clear congressional authorization. They found none in the IEEPA. As Roberts wrote, the President must “point to clear congressional authorization” to justify his assertion of tariff power. “He cannot.”

If the past year has taught businesses anything about trade policy, it’s that certainty is now a luxury item.

Second, and commanding a full six-justice majority, the Court worked through IEEPA’s text and concluded that the word regulate simply does not encompass the power to tax. The U.S. Code is full of statutes authorizing agencies to regulate various things, but the government, in its arguments before the Court, could not identify a single one in which that power has been understood to include taxation. In one of the opinion’s sharpest lines, the majority expressed skepticism “that in IEEPA — and IEEPA alone — Congress hid a delegation of its birth-right power to tax within the quotidian power to ‘regulate.'”

What the ruling does not say

Here is where businesses may need to pay close attention: The Court said nothing about refunds of tariffs already paid.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing in dissent, flagged the looming chaos directly. “The Court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury… . [T]hat process is likely to be a ‘mess’… . Because IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars… the Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements.”

Check out for more on the Supreme Court’s tariff decision here

That mess is now a real, operational problem. There is more than $175 billion in IEEPA tariff collections at risk, according to a estimate released today. Nearly 1,000 companies had already filed preemptive refund claims with the Court of International Trade (CIT) before today’s ruling. Indeed, the CIT has indicated it has jurisdiction to order reliquidation and refunds, and the government has stipulated it won’t challenge that authority.

However, the mechanics — who gets paid back, how much, and when — remain deeply uncertain. Some importers passed tariff costs downstream to their customers or absorbed them into pricing adjustments that can’t easily be unwound. For many businesses, the refund question will be less a windfall than a logistical headache.

What the Administration might do next

Make no mistake, the White House took a significant blow today. The IEEPA was the administration’s most flexible and powerful tariff instrument and the tool that let the President impose duties instantaneously, on any trading partner, at any rate, with no procedural prerequisites. That tool is now gone.

However, as mentioned, the administration signaled immediately that it intends an end-around in order to keep as many tariffs in place as possible. the United States would invoke alternative legal authorities, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (national security tariffs), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (unfair trade practices), and other statutory provisions. None of these alternatives offer the speed and blunt-force flexibility that the IEEPA provided, however, and they may not replicate the full scope of the current tariff regime in a timely fashion.

Shortly after the announcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling, President Trump announced that his is planning to invoke new trade authorities and potentially levy new, across-the-board tariff on US trading partners.

Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, notably, conceded the point while framing it sympathetically: “In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.”

That framing understates the practical significance. The alternative statutes each come with procedural requirements — agency investigations, public hearings, durational limits, rate caps — that IEEPA’s emergency framework did not impose. Section 122, for instance, caps tariffs at 15% for 150 days. Section 232 requires an investigation and report from the U.S. a Commerce Department. Section 301 demands a formal determination by the U.S. Trade Representative. These are not insurmountable hurdles of course, but they are hurdles and they will take time.

What businesses should do now

If the past year has taught businesses anything about trade policy, it’s that certainty is now a luxury item. Today’s ruling doesn’t change that; rather, it just changes the axis of uncertainty. Here’s what any organization impacted by trade should be thinking about:

• • Review your tariff exposure immediately — Understand which of your import duties were collected under IEEPA authority compared to the other statutes (Sections 232, 301, 201). Only IEEPA tariffs are affected by today’s Court ruling. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, and other goods remain fully in place, as do Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports. For many importers, a significant portion of their tariff burden will not change. For others, it may change everything.
  • Engage trade counsel on refund claims — If you’ve paid IEEPA duties, the clock is ticking. The CIT has a two-year statute of limitations on refund claims, running from the date the tariffs were published. For the earliest IEEPA tariffs (the fentanyl-related duties on Canada, Mexico, and China from February 2025, for example), that window is already narrowing. If you haven’t filed a protective claim yet, consult with counsel now.
  • Prepare for replacement tariffs — The administration has made clear it intends to reimpose tariffs under alternative authorities. Thus, the effective tariff rate is not going to 0%. Even without IEEPA tariffs, estimates suggest the average rate would settle around 9%, still far above the roughly 2% that prevailed before the beginning of President Trump’s second term. Businesses should map out scenarios to plan for a period in which IEEPA tariffs are lifted but gradually replaced by duties under other statutes, potentially with different rates, different product coverage, and different country-specific treatment.
  • Monitor trade deal stability — Many of the bilateral and multilateral trade agreements negotiated over the past year — with the United Kingdome, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and others — were structured around tariff levels built greatly upon the IEEPA. The legal basis for those arrangements is now uncertain. Watch for renegotiations, modifications, or lapses in these existing frameworks.
  • Build flexibility into supply chain planning — This is the hardest and most important advice. The trade policy environment is not returning to a stable equilibrium anytime soon. Today’s ruling is the end of one chapter, but the broader story — of a political system wrestling with how much tariff authority the President should have — is far from over. The administration will test the boundaries of its remaining statutory tools. And the courts will almost certainly be called upon again.

Taking in the bigger picture

For businesses, the practical takeaway from today’s Court order is more pedestrian but no less important: Strap in. The tariff landscape is shifting again, the refund process will be complicated, and the administration will find another way to pursue its trade objectives. Today brought clarity on the law, but clarity on the market is still a long way off.

For more on the impact of tariffs, you can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s recent����here

There are significant challenges involved with relying on automated tools to detect and authenticate evidence, says , Research Professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. “We aren’t at the place right now where we can count on the reliability of the automated tools,” she explains, adding that most computer scientists consider this a tricky problem.

Defining types of AI evidence

AI-generated evidence falls into two distinct categories. One, acknowledged AI-generated evidence is openly disclosed as created or modified by AI, such as accident reconstruction videos or expert analysis tools. These applications are transparent about their AI origins and creation or modification methods, which allow courts to evaluate them as such.

Second, unacknowledged AI-generated evidence is presented as authentic and unconnected to any AI creation or manipulation when it is, in fact, AI-generated or manipulated. Such examples include deepfake videos, fabricated receipts, and manipulated photographs. This type of manipulated evidence poses significant challenges for detection and authentication in court proceedings.

The , a joint effort by the National Center for State Courts (NVSC) and the Thomson Reuters Institute (TRI), recently published two bench cards as practical resources for judges who may face the evidentiary challenges presented by and AI-generated evidence. These tools help judges make real-time decisions when confronted with potentially AI-generated materials. The bench cards provide structured questions about evidence sources, chain of custody, and potential alterations to help guide judicial evaluation.

Authenticating unacknowledged AI-generated evidence

The current legal framework for authentication of AI-generated evidence sets a fairly low bar for admissibility, according to , Senior Specialist Legal Editor at �������� Practical Law. Generally, evidence is admissible when a party provides enough information that a reasonable jury could find the evidence is more likely than not authentic. This is often done by offering extrinsic evidence. For example, a party seeking to authenticate a voice recording may offer the testimony of a witness who is familiar with the speaker’s voice. Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 901(b) offers several more examples of authentication methods.

Judges usually make the authentication determination under FRE 104(a), deeming evidence authenticated if a reasonable jury could find it more likely than not genuine. Indeed, judges have the authority and responsibility to act as gatekeepers in court trials to make preliminary decisions about evidence admissibility before it goes to a jury and to assess witness credibility, which remains crucial in evaluating evidence.

However, in some circumstances, the jury must determine whether the evidence is authentic. Specifically, when a party disputes the authenticity of evidence and there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in favor of either party, a question of fact exists. In this instance, FRE 104(b) requires the court to leave the authentication determination to the jury.

Right now, of the Santa Clara County (Calif.) Superior Court says that the tools that judges already possess to determine authenticity are useful, but the landscape is evolving. In particular, the liar’s dividend — a concept when authentic evidence is falsely claimed to be AI-generated — is a current challenge in which the existing rules may not be sufficient.

Dr. Grossman agrees, noting that courts will need to develop strategies to address this issue, including requiring parties to provide evidence to support their claims that evidence is fake. “I think the courts will see [the liar’s dividend] sooner than the deepfakes.”

Recent cases addressing AI and evidence

Several significant court decisions have shaped the treatment of AI-generated evidence, including the State of Washington v. Puloka case, in which due to lack of reliability. In contrast, a California state court rejected a challenge to video evidence in Huang v. Tesla that centered on the vague possibility that the video could have been a deepfake.

The increasing sophistication of deepfakes, both audio and video, poses significant challenges for judges and attorneys in detecting and authenticating evidence. “GenAI generates content using two algorithms, one that creates content and one that distinguishes it from reality, creating a constant feedback loop that improves the AI’s ability to generate realistic fakes,” Dr. Grossman explains.

Key questions judges should ask

To address the challenges of AI-generated evidence, Dr. Grossman suggests that judges ask themselves three key questions:

• • • Is the evidence too good to be true?
    • Is the original copy or device missing?
    • Is there a complicated or implausible explanation for its unavailability or disappearance?

In addition, Judge Yew advises judges to consider the credibility of the witness and order in-person appearances when necessary. And Dr. Grossman says that substantial scientific work is necessary before courts should trust AI tools.

, Dean and Professor of Law at the University of New Hampshire’s Franklin Pierce School of Law, is pushing for the creation of a comprehensive framework for the evaluation and ongoing development of AI-powered legal tools. “Legal AI tools should undergo the same sort of rigorous training and testing that humans undergo to do the same kind of work,” Carpenter says, adding that this approach would ensure reliability while adapting to evolving technology.

Check out the next webinar, , in the here

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated remote or online court appearances, necessitating clear standards for virtual decorum. While remote hearings ease logistical burdens like travel and parking, they often lack consistent rules across jurisdictions. Virtual participants must consider the angle of cameras, maintaining eye contact, how names and photos appear, and whether your background and ambient noise present professionally on camera.

Indeed, the digital divide in technological access and literacy became evident since the pandemic, with non-college educated men and seniors expressing the lowest comfort level with new courtroom technology.

Disappearing role of jury trials in court proceedings

While courts have made great strides to better prepare self-represented litigants and offer low or no-cost resources to judicial participants, one of the benchmarks of deliberative democracy in the United States has been steadily declining for decades across both civil and criminal courts: jury trials.

Jury trials have decreased as a means of disposition due to their cost, unpredictability, and time-consuming nature compared to arbitration, mediation, or bench trials. Plea bargaining in criminal cases, as well as mandatory minimum sentences, have increased defendants’ incentive to waive their right to a trial. In civil proceedings, binding arbitration clauses and maximum caps on damages also has reduced utilization of jury trials.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated remote or online court appearances, necessitating clear standards for virtual decorum.

Indeed, court systems seem motivated by efficiency — despite the fact that judges, attorneys, and participants believe that jury trials offer the fairest course of justice and are worth the additional time commitment. This trend persists despite the judiciary’s belief in the value of jury trials, a right that’s enshrined in the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

For many Americans, participating in the jury system is the only interaction that they will ever have with the judicial system, and it often offers a chance for citizens to actively participate in the nation’s democracy. While the judicial branch of the federal government, trust dipped below 50% in 2022 in tandem with a decrease in the approval of the job performance for the Supreme Court. Young people, people of color, and non-college educated individuals are the least likely to trust that the judiciary operates in the best interest of the American people.

Historically, judicial systems and legal counsel have used legal segregation tactics and more recently, the to hinder the participation of people of color on juries in the US. In several states, having misdemeanor convictions — or even a felony charge (not a felony conviction, merely a charge) — is substantial enough to preclude individuals from serving on a jury. Excluded jurors have limited remedies to argue why they should be able to participate as jurors. Together, these factors ensure that people of color who do participate in jury trials are less likely to have jurors who are also people of color deciding their own fate if faced with criminal charges.

Improving juror experience in courts

In addition to correcting historic inequities that have excluded people of color from serving as jurors, we know that elements of servings as a juror disproportionately impact lower income citizens. An estimated each year and 11 million report for jury duty. Improving the experience of jurors can help discourage individuals from removing themselves from jury consideration and ensure that more diverse audiences are represented in jury selection.

However, the number one complaint from jurors currently is the amount of time spent waiting for direction. Offering enhanced communication tools — such as online qualification questionnaire completion, online juror scheduling, text and call alerts — from the time of jury summons until the date of reporting can place more information in the hands of jurors. Further, using staggered jury panels or allowing remote appearances for voir dire (or jury selection) processes can improve attendance and reduce the burden on jurors.

The number one complaint from jurors currently is the amount of time spent waiting for direction.

Also, enhanced waiting room design for jurors with lockers, concessions, nursing rooms, and charging ports could improve the experience for jurors, ensuring that their wait be more comfortable.

Increasing per diem rates for jurors also reduces the pain of lost wages felt by hourly workers who sacrifice their wages when reporting for jury duty. The State of New Mexico has tied jury duty wages to the prevailing minimum wage, and Arizona allows for jurors to claim against their actual lost wages for jury duty, up to $300 per day. Creation of lengthy trial funds can also help jurors who face financial burdens in situations when trials span for longer periods of time than anticipated.

Lastly, it is critical that courts consider the public nature of juror’s identity in the day and age of social media. It is not illegal for counsel to review juror’s social media and internet presence during the voir dire process, and with the ready accessibility of court documents and proceedings online, jurors are more likely to have their identities exposed and experience harassment or threats to their safety. The State of Oregon has a provision that prohibits naming jurors in any court proceeding open to the public. Courthouse design can also take into consideration separate entrances and exits to ensure juror safety and privacy.

Enhancements in technology, courthouse design, and processes can not only enhance defendant and juror experiences but can also begin to correct historical inequities in the judiciary. The judiciary remains the most trusted of the three branches of government in a time of record distrust of institutions, but finding more ways to engage all Americans in deliberative democracy will only stand to further increase trust.

You can find more about what best practices courts and court administrators are using to manage AI-driven technology here.

Fundamentally, the Supreme Court’s decisions in four major cases — , , , and — together shift review of decision-making from administrative and regulatory forums into federal courts. Now the judicial system, already overtaxed and plagued by delays, faces an unavoidable deluge of litigation in areas requiring subject-matter expertise with no increase in capacity or resources — a certain recipe for complications.

An administrative law revolution across 4 cases

Although the reasoning of these Supreme Court decisions varied, each case assumed that the core review and approval of regulatory authority belonged to actors outside the administrative state. Loper Bright indicates that the Court does not merely take issue with the role of agency as arbiter, rather the Court interprets the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to require independent judicial interpretation of ambiguous authorizing statutes over deference to agency interpretation.

After Corner Post, those challenges to agency regulations need not be constrained to the first few years of their promulgation, but rather may be raised many years later after a plaintiff suffers alleged harm. And as Jarkesy makes clear, the Court now favors juries to render judgment on claims that, for nearly 50 years without challenge, were resolved in agency tribunals. Even when an agency does engage in rulemaking or promulgates a policy, Ohio v. EPA dictates that such exercise of power will be heavily scrutinized under arbitrary and capricious review.

The judicial system, already overtaxed and plagued by delays, faces an unavoidable deluge of litigation in areas requiring subject-matter expertise with no increase in capacity or resources — a certain recipe for complications.

The Court’s antagonism toward administrative agencies is hardly new, and it has steadfastly remained silent as to the practical implications of these recent decisions. While last citing , the Court has in recent years eschewed deference to agency expertise in favor of judicial review. In Loper Bright, the Court found that agencies have no special expertise in interpreting Congressional mandates, which will likely herald an onslaught of Loper Bright .

Even more so, Corner Post’s expansion of standing exacerbates Loper Bright’s impact on the courts. Corner Post empowers aggrieved parties to bring suit whenever injury may be found, even if a regulation’s meaning previously appeared to be fixed to a limited jurisdiction. Simply put, this will directly inspire a new set of challenges to regulations headed to the D.C. Circuit Court and to Article III courts (the 94 federal district courts and 13 appellate courts) nation-wide.

Jarkesy ensures that regulators seeking aggressive enforcement will increasingly be forced to defend those efforts in Article III courts. Despite earlier judicial warning signs in cases such as Lucia v. SEC in 2018 in which the Supreme Court questioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s use of administrative law judges, the Jarkesy decision ushers in a new world for administrative bodies. These agencies will be forced to either forego actions traditionally brought in their own administrative forums or . Given their public mandates and ambitions, it is difficult to imagine any downsizing of effort. Instead, what is nearly certain is an increase in Article III litigation.

What’s most obvious is that each of these rulings and corresponding transfer of authority to the courts promises to open the floodgates of litigation.

Ohio v. EPA joins this cluster of cases, encouraging early challenges prior to enforcement and incentivizing protracted rulemaking. Loper Bright’s return to instills greater persuasive power to agency decisions that are more thoroughly considered and more consistent with historical interpretations. Should an agency fail to exercise seemingly the most exacting review during rulemaking, then Ohio v. EPA indicates that an arbitrary and capricious challenge is likely to succeed.

Challenges in expanding judicial oversight

Without legislative intervention, Article III courts will almost certainly be overwhelmed by the influx of cases stemming from the Supreme Court’s administrative law decisions this term. A major part of the problem is a shortage of judges.

Congress has failed to pass any comprehensive legislation addressing the capacity of our federal district courts since 1990. For more than 30 years, have been authorized in the federal court of appeals. Since 2003, there have been no new judgeships in federal district courts. Some jurisdictions have not had a new judge since 1978.

The static number of judicial posts in recent decades — at odds with the commensurate growth in population and litigation — has burdened the judiciary with increasingly large caseloads. Filings per judge have increased by around 20% in federal appeals and district courts. that with so few federal judges, concerns are mounting as the judiciary struggles to balance the burdens of delay against the danger of rushed judgments.

Congress has failed to pass any comprehensive legislation addressing the capacity of our federal district courts since 1990.

Recent efforts are underway at the margins to remedy these shortages. In 2022, the Judicial Conference of the United States , a metric assessing the relative complexity of each case and assigning a value to it. (To understand the weighting protocol better, where a loan default may count as a fraction of a weighted case, an antitrust case may count as more than three weighted cases.)

The Conference has established a threshold of 430 weighted filings as a signal that additional judicial positions are needed. In assessing the current caseloads, the Conference identified eight courts with weighted caseloads in excess of 600 and three in excess of 700. In March 2023, the Conference recommended creating an additional 66 permanent district court judgeships and converting various temporary judgeships into permanent positions.

In response to these recommendations, bipartisan leadership proposed the in the Senate, seeking to address the compounding problem by largely adopting the Judicial Conference’s recommendations over the course of 12 years. The proposed legislation in August and .

However, the relief promised by the potential passage of the JUDGES Act is undermined by the recent Supreme Court decisions. While passing the JUDGES Act would grant long overdue relief to overworked courts, it was drafted prior to the recent Supreme Court decisions. As a result, the judicial expansion contemplated under the Act does not take into account the potentially dramatic increase in litigation likely to come out from Loper Bright and similar cases.

In light of these recent rulings, the Conference should consider revising their proposed expansion of the federal judiciary to address an anticipated increase in litigation — and the legislature should then revise the JUDGES Act accordingly. Additionally, Congress should provide clearer delegation to agencies or address the impact of the procedural changes by legislation. Ultimately, these efforts will require a time-intensive, proactive effort across agencies and the legislature to head off areas of contention and backlog.

The much more likely scenario, in both the short and long term, is a dramatically increased workload for Article III courts. Passing the JUDGES Act will provide momentary relief, but absent further action, the longstanding challenges of overworked and understaffed federal courts are almost certain to be dramatically exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s transfer of responsibility from the administrative state to the judiciary.

You can find out more about here.

Experts said the Court’s��, which was announced in late-June, could lead to the elimination or weakening of thousands of rules for the environment, healthcare, labor protection, food and drug safety, telecommunications, and the financial sector. As one of the most heavily regulated US industries, financial services��will now face greater regulatory uncertainty.

“The court’s decision to overrule��Chevron��deference… was a convulsive shock to the legal system because so much of lawmaking over the past 40 years has been based on this framework,” said Prof. Richard Lazarus of Harvard Law School. “Going forward, it’s going to be no-holds-barred because no one really understands��how the courts will rule on the validity of federal regulations in absence of the��Chevron��precedent.”

Reticent regulators

For financial services, the impact will be felt most greatly by regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

“Agencies will likely need to be more careful in drafting rules to, where possible, tie their expectations to specific statutory language,” said the consulting firm PwC in a note to clients. “Crucially, they may now be more limited in their ability to respond to risks in areas not explicitly discussed in statutes, such as climate, digital assets, and artificial intelligence.”

Thus far, regulatory agencies have been reticent to share their view on the Court’s ruling, and when contacted, the Fed, OCC, SEC, CFPB and CFTC all declined to comment.

Still, in perhaps a glimpse of how financial regulators might approach the newly uncertain legal terrain, the CFPB sent a letter on July 2 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit����that involves “certain discriminatory discouragement of credit applications.” The CFPB argued that its action against such discrimination is a “valid exercise of the bureau’s authority” and “has never depended on [the Chevron] deference.”

Agencies will now have to weigh their actions more carefully in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling to ensure they are not invoking the Chevron doctrine in asserting their authority.

Large banks silent

Many US banks, particularly the largest ones, have long been critical of what they see as over-regulation by federal agencies, particularly the Dodd-Frank Act rules established after the 2008- ‘09 financial crisis. For example, the recently proposed increase in capital requirements under the so-called Basel Endgame has unleashed a torrent of public criticism, with many large institutions calling the proposal without merit and potentially damaging to American consumers and businesses.

With the Supreme Court’s decision likely to mean less regulation, experts said the biggest Wall Street banks might welcome such an outcome. A handful of banks — including JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley — either declined to comment on the decision or did not respond to requests for comment.

As for the industry groups representing US banking interests, the Financial Services Forum, a leading lobby group, also declined to comment. Additionally, the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), which represents the largest banks, did not reply to a request for comment. BPI has traditionally been one of the most vocal groups against increased bank regulation.

The American Bankers Association (ABA) was the sole industry group that did provide a response.

“While we are still reviewing the full implications of [the] Supreme Court decision, the ruling sends a crystal-clear message to federal agencies that their powers are not unlimited,” said Rob Nichols, ABA president.

“This is an important win for accountability and predictability at a time when agencies are unleashing a tsunami of regulation — in many cases clearly exceeding their statutory authority while making it harder for banks to serve their customers,” Nichols said. “We will continue to fight to ensure that bank regulators follow the law every time they exercise their powers.”

U.S. Supreme Court even addressed the presence of AI in the legal field, noting that while he didn’t see AI taking over the role of judges, he did see it significantly impacting the legal community. At this point, it is clear that there is some uncertainty about usage, and that attitude is coming from the top down.

To get further clarity on this, the Thomson Reuters Institute surveyed the landscape of the courts, querying judges and court professionals at a number of different levels and jurisdictions, to produce . This just-published report covers much of what is on survey respondents; minds, from caseloads to technology and everything in between. This year, the annual report delves deeply into how court professionals and judges see the use of Gen AI in the courtroom.

The concerns over technology also become more dire when you consider that more than half of the respondents said they expect staffing shortages within the coming 12 months.

Although AI was important in all areas, according to survey respondents, they also said they were still managing many of the challenges that they had cited in our previous survey, conducted in 2022. These concerns were strongly reflective of how courts have had to navigate through the post-pandemic world, which still includes hearing delays, growing caseloads, and the slower pace of digitalization and modernization within the courts themselves.

Yet, while these concerns were still reflected in our latest survey, many of these challenges have receded in their minds; for example, while increasing caseloads continue to be the biggest change that respondents said they had experienced in the past two years, with 40% of respondents citing this change, that was down from 45% in our previous survey.

Also, there have been changes in the greater use and overall acceptance of virtual hearings, and subsequently, more respondents said they were seeing the advantages of the practice. Indeed, most respondents (82%) said that virtual hearings increase justice opportunities for litigants — a sentiment that has risen from 76% since 2022. And nearly all respondents (90%) say that virtual courts increase justice opportunities by removing the geographic and financial barriers that had previously been major impediments to litigant participation.

The report also goes into the use and management of the court, with respondents citing digital evidence management as a top area of concern. In areas where digital evidence systems are not used, nearly three-fifths (58%) think that it would be beneficial. This is an 8-percentage point increase since the previous report. Overall, it appears that the need for technology is increasing.

In fact, these concerns over technology also become more dire when you consider that more than half of the respondents said they expect staffing shortages within the coming 12 months. That expectation will require staff to rely more heavily on technology to keep the court moving and provide access to citizens in the long run.

Overall, the report shows that court professionals and judges are enjoying broader engagement with technology solutions, especially around such critical areas as evidence collection and storage as digital storage and certain case-material sharing and management tools are seeing more acceptance across the board.

While there is no consensus yet on Gen AI, it will obviously play a part in the courts’ future. In addition to keeping an eye on the evolution of that technology, it will be important to keep an eye on the evolution of other technologies that increase efficiency and, ultimately, access to justice for all citizens.

You can download the full here.

Nonetheless, the decision suggests that the Court has adopted a “color blind” approach to race discrimination issues, according to , Executive Director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at NYU’s School of Law. With the Court’s decision, there is a “legitimate fear that in a future case the U.S. Supreme Court will extend the same logic over to employment discrimination and prevent companies from taking into account race, sex, national origin, or other protected characteristics when making employment decisions, even when trying to correct for a large imbalance in their workforce,” Glasgow explains.

Further, legal action likely will continue to be used as a mechanism to thwart and disincentivize company’s DEI programs. As a result, Glasgow recommends that organizations do the following:

• • • Shift from cohorts to concerns — Rather than limiting programs to members of a particular cohort or identity, programs should be made available to anyone who is concerned about that particular topic, Glasgow says. For example, under a law firm diversity fellowship program, a white man with a demonstrated commitment to DEI issues could also can apply for the program.
    • Conduct a self-audit in partnership with legal counsel — Organizations should analyze the level of risk in every DEI activity by using a traffic light High-risk programs would be labelled with red and less risky programs labelled with green, to identify explicitly those initiatives which give preference to members of a protected group under the law. For instance, a company using a diverse identity of a candidate as a tiebreaker in promotion decisions would land that company in the red category.
    • De-bias talent systems — One example of de-biasing a hiring system is to use structured interviewing, which ensures that all candidates meet the required qualifications, that common questions in the same order are being asked of all candidates, and that the scoring system for candidates is based on merit.
    • Continue executing inclusion and belonging programs — Glasgow advocates for the continuation of cultural initiatives that benefit every single person. “Some DEI programs benefit everyone in the workplace — even those who belong to historically dominant or majority groups at work — such as an allyship program or a program centered on authenticity or psychology safety.” Glasgow says. “There is nothing illegal about them because they are not offering a preference to any particular group.”

How to handle DEI initiatives with some risk

Under the law, plaintiffs need to show they suffered an “adverse employment action” in order for discrimination to occur; and according to Glasgow, a lot of DEI work does not meet that threshold because it does not affect specific people in their employment. Rather, it’s aimed at creating a more diverse and inclusive culture throughout the organization.

Still, getting sued for a regular discrimination claim from someone who belongs to an underrepresented identity in the workplace is still more common than a reverse discrimination claim from a white person. Glasgow warns against abandoning DEI initiatives that help to make those from underrepresented backgrounds feel more welcome or offer more opportunities to succeed in the workplace, because doing so could create an environment that is more hostile and unwelcoming to people who belong to these marginalized groups.

Also, doing so could open the company to legal risks. For example, eliminating mentorship or sponsorship initiatives that were helping more women advance through your organization might lead to a more homogeneous leadership team, which could lead to a risk of being sued under disparate impact theory, says Glasgow.

Guidance for navigating political risks

Navigating the political risks of maintaining DEI investments is not going away any time soon. This is why companies should continue to communicate why DEI is important to their core values, especially if a company views DEI initiatives as critical for its long-term business strategy.

Amid an tight labor market, a company’s ability to reach out to the next generation of talent in order to meet the company’s future strategy and to align the values of future leaders with the company’s are key points to emphasize with all stakeholders.

In determining whether or not a company should take a position on an external issue, corporate governance expert — currently Of Counsel in the Corporate Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, and formerly Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court — to ensure there is a “deliberative process of the board of directors based on the direct relevance of the policy question to the company.”

Indeed, the full board “should have to weigh and bear responsibility for any corporate position,” Strine writes, adding that it “should also be clear that no employee or customer is expected to share that belief and that all people of good faith are welcome to work for and patronize the company.”