IMPORT TARIFFS ON THOROUGHBREDS TO THE USA
What the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 decision means - what buyers must do and what to expect going forward
Bing I. Bush Jr.
For several years, importing horses from the United Kingdom and the European Union into the United States involved added cost and uncertainty tied to a tariff program initiated during the Trump administration.
Beginning in mid-2022, the U.S. government imposed additional duties through executive trade actions relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Acting on presidential directives, U.S. Customs and Border Protection assessed additional ad valorem duties at the time of importation based on country of origin.
These duties were applied automatically at entry and had to be paid as a condition of release into the United States, alongside ordinary customs duties and fees. Live horses imported into the United States were fully subject to that program.
In practical terms, the structure was straightforward but costly.
Horses bred and foaled in the United Kingdom were assessed an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty, while horses bred and foaled in European Union member states were assessed an additional 15 percent ad valorem duty.
The applicable rate depended solely on the horse’s place of breeding and foaling as declared on the U.S. customs entry—not on where the horse was sold, trained, raced, or exported from.
A horse bred in Ireland, France, or Germany was assessed the EU rate even if sold or shipped from England, while a horse bred in England was assessed the UK rate regardless of where it later trained or raced.
For U.S. importers of record, payment of these duties was unavoidable. European sellers and agents should note that these tariffs were borne on the U.S. side of the transaction, and that refund rights are governed by U.S. customs law rather than by private commercial arrangements.
That legal framework changed on February 20, 2026, when the United States Supreme Court issued a consolidated decision addressing the scope of executive authority under IEEPA.
In clear terms, the Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose broad, country-of-origin tariffs through executive action, and that President Trump exceeded the authority Congress had granted.
The Court reaffirmed that tariff-setting power rests with Congress, not the executive branch, consistent with the Constitution’s separation of powers. Because the additional 10 percent and 15 percent duties on horse imports were imposed under that same IEEPA-based authority, the legal foundation for those tariffs fell with the Court’s ruling.
Once a tariff is declared unlawful by the Supreme Court, U.S. Customs has no discretion to retain those duties where refund rights are properly preserved.
The issue becomes procedural rather than political. At the same time, the Court did not order automatic refunds. Whether duties are recovered, and how long recovery takes, depends on adherence to established U.S. customs procedures.
Every U.S. horse import entry follows the same lifecycle: entry, an open review period, and liquidation. Liquidation is U.S. Customs’ final accounting of an entry and can be thought of simply as Customs closing the file. Before liquidation, Customs may correct or adjust an entry administratively. After liquidation, the entry is treated as final unless the importer takes timely procedural action. This distinction explains why buyers who paid identical tariffs may now find themselves in different positions based solely on timing.
Liquidation often occurs without direct notice to the buyer. Importers should therefore confirm liquidation status in writing with their U.S. customs broker, including the liquidation date if applicable, and obtain an updated CBP Entry Summary (Form 7501) or broker status report. Close coordination with the broker who filed the entry is essential, as brokers control entry records and communications with U.S. Customs. Because liquidation dates drive protest deadlines, assumptions or informal assurances can be costly.
If liquidation has occurred, refund rights are not lost immediately. U.S. customs law provides a 180-day window following the liquidation date during which an importer may file a formal protest challenging the assessment of duties. A timely protest preserves refund rights, and once filed, U.S. Customs is legally required to apply the Supreme Court’s ruling to that entry. Neither the President nor the agency has authority to deny a refund on policy grounds where procedures are followed.
Where liquidation has not occurred, buyers are in the strongest procedural position. In that situation, U.S. Customs may process refunds administratively without reopening a final decision. Buyers should confirm in writing that the entry remains open and instruct their broker not to allow liquidation without advance notice. Before liquidation, a buyer may also submit a written request for administrative correction or refund through the broker, identifying the tariff assessment and referencing the Supreme Court decision. This step is not required to preserve rights, but it can help flag the entry for review and reduce the risk of inadvertent liquidation.
Once U.S. Customs begins implementing the decision, refunds on open entries are often processed in approximately three to nine months. Where liquidation has occurred and a protest is required, refunds commonly take twelve to eighteen months or longer. Some delay should be expected due to the scale of the program affected. Delay, however, should not be confused with denial. Where procedural rights are preserved, refunds are mandatory.
What About New Tariffs Going Forward?
The Supreme Court’s decision does not eliminate the possibility of future tariffs, but it fundamentally changes how any new tariffs must be imposed.
What the Court rejected was the use of broad emergency powers to impose sweeping, country-of-origin tariffs without congressional authorization. Going forward, any administration seeking to impose new duties must rely on specific trade statutes, each of which carries procedural limits and practical constraints.
One possible mechanism is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the President to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent to address balance-of-payments concerns. These tariffs are limited in duration (generally no more than 150 days), are expressly temporary, and are not designed to create long-term trade regimes. While theoretically applicable to horse imports, Section 122 tariffs are short-lived and cannot be used to justify retroactive collections or to block refunds of duties already determined to be unlawful.
Another possible authority is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which permits tariffs or quotas where imports threaten national security. This authority has historically been used for specific industrial sectors such as steel, aluminum, and energy-related materials. Applying Section 232 to live horses would require formal findings and a credible national security rationale, making broad application to bloodstock imports unlikely and, at a minimum, highly targeted.
A third mechanism is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes tariffs in response to specific unfair trade practices by a foreign country. Section 301 actions require investigation, findings, and notice, and result in narrowly targeted measures rather than across-the-board country-of-origin duties. While Section 301 has been used extensively in other contexts, it is procedurally slow and not suited to sudden or retroactive tariffs on horse imports.
Critically, none of these statutes permit retroactive tariffs, and none allow the government to deny refunds of duties collected under a tariff that has already been declared unlawful. Any new tariff imposed under a new authority would apply prospectively only and would not affect refund rights arising from the invalidated IEEPA tariffs.
What This Means for Buyers
For horses imported from the United Kingdom and the European Union, the additional 10 percent and 15 percent duties lacked lawful authority as of February 20, 2026. Refunds are available where procedural rights are preserved. Open entries are positioned for earlier recovery, while liquidated entries remain recoverable so long as a protest is filed within the statutory window. Even if new tariffs are imposed in the future under a different statute, those tariffs cannot be used to offset, deny, or delay refunds owed on prior unlawful duties. With attention to liquidation status, deadlines, and documentation, buyers are operating on settled legal ground.
What This Means for UK & EU Sellers
The Supreme Court’s decision restores predictability to U.S.–UK and U.S.–EU bloodstock transactions. While future tariffs remain possible, they must now follow defined statutory paths, involve notice and findings, and operate prospectively. The era of sudden, emergency-based, country-wide tariffs applied without warning has been sharply curtailed. This increased stability should encourage renewed confidence among U.S. buyers and help normalize cross-border bloodstock trade.
About Bing I. Bush, Jr.
Bing I. Bush, Jr. has practiced law since 1987. He is a graduate of the University of Kentucky College of Law and studied international law at Downing College, Cambridge University. He also manages Abbondanza Racing and advises owners, trainers, and partnerships on legal and business issues affecting the racing industry.
Law Offices of Bing I. Bush, Jr. – A Professional Corporation
Lexington, KY & Del Mar, CA / 858-259-7540 / bing@bushlawoffices.com / bushlawoffices.com
This article is intended to provide general information and is not intended to provide legal advice.
The information contained in this article is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Bush Law Offices will not and cannot act as your legal counsel or file any documents or perform any other actions on your behalf until a written agreement for legal services is signed between the client and our firm.