Hochul Demands 13.5 Billion Tariff Refund After Supreme Court Ruling

New York Governor Kathy Hochul is demanding a staggering $13.5 billion refund for her state after the Supreme Court struck down a key legal basis for President Trump’s tariffs.

The demand comes after the Court ruled 6–3 that the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the president to impose broad import tariffs.

Hochul argues that New Yorkers have paid the price and now deserve their money back.

In its February decision, the Supreme Court concluded that IEEPA does not grant the executive branch authority to levy sweeping tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, made clear that Congress had not delegated such power under that statute.

Notably, the ruling did not address whether refunds should be issued.

That omission has created a legal gray area and a political opportunity.

Trump criticized the decision as “defective” and signaled he would explore alternative legal avenues to maintain tariffs. Shortly after the ruling, he announced a 10% global tariff, later raising it to 15%, suggesting the broader trade fight is far from over.

Hochul cited estimates from the Yale Budget Lab suggesting the average New York household paid approximately $1,751 in additional costs due to tariffs. Multiply that across millions of households, and the number climbs quickly.

“These senseless and illegal tariffs were just a tax on New York consumers, small businesses and farmers,” she said, demanding a full refund.

But the larger economic context matters.

Tariffs are often used as leverage in trade negotiations and national security strategy. During Trump’s first term, tariffs were deployed in an effort to rebalance trade deficits, protect domestic manufacturing, and counter unfair trade practices particularly from China.

The U.S. trade deficit with China had reached over $375 billion prior to those policies. Supporters argued that targeted tariffs were necessary to push for structural reforms and bring manufacturing back to American soil.

Hochul also pointed to rising costs for farmers, claiming:

• Over 80% of agrochemical imports are subject to tariffs of at least 10%.

• Roughly 70% of farm machinery imports face similar duties.

• Some farmers have reported cost increases of up to $20,000 annually.

• Milk exports have fallen 7%, according to her office.

There is no question that tariffs can create short-term price pressures. However, proponents argue that long-term trade realignment strengthens domestic supply chains and reduces dependence on foreign producers a lesson underscored during pandemic-era shortages.

The broader U.S. economy has increasingly focused on reshoring critical industries, from semiconductors to energy infrastructure. Tariffs, in that view, are one tool among many to restore domestic production capacity.

Several Democratic governors, including California’s Gavin Newsom and Illinois’ J.B. Pritzker, have joined Hochul in calling for refunds. Corporations such as FedEx have also filed suits seeking reimbursement for duties paid under the disputed authority.

Yet there are major unanswered questions:

• Does the Supreme Court ruling automatically trigger repayment?

• Will Congress need to act?

• Could litigation drag on for years?

Even President Trump suggested the issue may need to be litigated further.

For taxpayers, the refund debate underscores a deeper reality: trade policy carries real economic consequences, both positive and negative. Tariffs can protect domestic industry but may raise consumer prices in the short term.

As inflation peaked at 9.1% in 2022 the highest level in 40 years voters became acutely sensitive to price increases. Any policy affecting household budgets is now politically explosive.

The Supreme Court decision represents a significant check on executive power. It also throws future trade policy into uncertainty.

If Congress must play a larger role in tariff decisions, that could reshape how future administrations approach economic leverage against foreign competitors.

Meanwhile, Hochul is positioning herself as a defender of consumers and farmers. Critics, however, argue that trade enforcement and economic sovereignty are complex issues not easily reduced to refund checks.

The fight over tariffs is far from finished. Neither is the debate over who ultimately pays the cost.

Share this article or subscribe to our newsletter for more analysis on trade, tariffs, and the future of the American economy.