The U.S. Supreme Court’s invalidation of certain tariffs imposed by the Trump administration set up importers for a windfall of refunds. But a new wave of tariffs recently announced by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) could serve to quash any hopes of long-term relief.

In February, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which makes no mention of tariffs as a mechanism for regulating international commerce in response to what the President deems a “national emergency.” The Court directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to refund the tariffs, a process that is slowly getting underway.

Importers haven’t had much time to celebrate. At the beginning of June, USTR announced a new set of tariffs of between 10% and 12.5% on more than 99% of U.S. imports, asserting that trading partners had failed to fully prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. The agency justified the new tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the U.S. government to impose tariffs and other trade restrictions in response to what it declares to be “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices.

Previous tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration have been framed as retaliation for unfair trade practices aimed directly at the U.S. That’s not the case this time around. With his latest action under Section 301, Trump “has targeted basically the world for not taking action as to another country, in this case China,” says Brett Johnson, partner in the law firm of Snell & Wilmer.

Johnson says it’s rare for a President to take action against U.S. trading partners in such a roundabout manner: “'China is doing this, you’re not telling them to stop, so we’re going to take action against you.'”

Certain parallels, he adds, can be seen in the form of export controls imposed in response to transshipments that were intended to bypass U.S. sanctions, quotas or tariffs. But punishing trading partners for their policies toward a third country — or in this case, the lack of a policy — “is a new one.”

Trump has also imposed heavy tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, provisions of which allow for an even broader determination of threats to national security posed by allegedly unfair trade practices.

“You’re able to ram a truck through it,” says Johnson. “Basically, it’s about any kinds of policies that are unreasonable, discriminatory or restrict U.S. commerce.” Current tariffs under Section 232 include 50% on imports of steel, aluminum and copper, and 25% on manufactured products that contain any of those metals.

Finally, there’s the blanket tariff of up to 15% on all imports imposed by Trump earlier this year under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits temporary import duties or surcharges for up to 150 days. Those tariffs expire on July 24.

The question for importers: In the end, do these new tariffs wipe out the refunds for IEEPA-based charges that they’re anticipating? The answer depends on how much of the IEEPA refunds they’ll end up getting back. In response to the Supreme Court decision, the U.S. Court of International Trade ordered the government to refund all applicable payments. But CBP subsequently said in a court filing that it would only be able to process about $127 billion of an estimated $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs. (Some observers put the total at closer to $200 billion.) Johnson notes that the Administration is refusing to refund duties that were already liquidated at the time of the court decision. And, prior to the court ruling, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had estimated that the total government payout would only amount to about half the IEEPA duties collected over the year that they were in effect.

Ultimately, Johnson says, the final balance of refunds versus new duties could amount to a wash for importers, “but without IEEPA being invalidated, the [Section 301] payments would have been in addition to that.”

Imposition of the new 301 tariffs wasn’t immediate. The comment period for USTR’s latest action opened on June 2 and was scheduled to close on July 6. “These laws are still subject to the Administrative Procedure Act,” Johnson notes. “If they did it without process, it would be more subject to challenge.”

Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the Section 301 actions, Trump is likely to continue seeking ways to make his tariffs stick, whether to bolster government coffers, put a stop to forced labor or punish U.S. trading partners for perceived unfair practices.

“This is definitely having a significant impact on the supply chain,” Johnson says. “Companies really don’t like uncertainty.”