Washington’s tariff refund battle has entered a new phase after the Trump administration appealed a trade court order requiring customs authorities to return duties paid by all importers under emergency tariff measures struck down by the Supreme Court.The appeal targets the broadest part of Judge Richard K. Eaton’s order at the US Court of International Trade, which directed US Customs and Border Protection to refund duties collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The contested order covers importers that sued the government as well as companies that paid the tariffs but did not file cases before their entries became final.
The dispute affects one of the largest customs repayment exercises in US history. Customs authorities have estimated that around $166 billion in duties and deposits were collected under the emergency tariff programme, which covered tens of millions of import entries and more than 300,000 importers. The Supreme Court ruled on February 20 that the law did not give the president authority to impose tariffs, rejecting the administration’s use of emergency economic powers to apply broad import duties.
The Justice Department’s appeal does not challenge refunds for every category of entry. The administration has accepted that many unliquidated entries, and entries still within the normal protest window, can be processed through customs mechanisms. The central dispute concerns entries that have been finally liquidated and are no longer open under ordinary customs procedures, particularly where the importer did not bring a lawsuit.
Government lawyers argue that the trade court exceeded its authority by ordering universal relief for companies that were not parties to the litigation. Their position is that refunds for finally liquidated entries require importer-specific court orders. That approach would force many businesses to pursue individual claims, a step that trade lawyers say could delay repayments and increase legal costs for smaller importers.
Judge Eaton’s orders were designed to prevent unequal treatment among companies that paid the same invalidated duties. The court had previously pressed customs officials to explain why the government could not design a broader repayment system once the Supreme Court had ruled the tariffs unlawful. The judge also required senior customs officials to account for the pace of repayments and the technical work needed to process claims.
Customs authorities have already started issuing refunds through a dedicated system known as CAPE, built within the Automated Commercial Environment platform. The process requires importers and customs brokers to identify qualifying entries and submit data for recalculation. Refunds already paid run into the tens of billions of dollars, though many claims remain pending because of entry status, missing payment information, technical constraints and unresolved legal questions.
The litigation stems from tariff measures imposed under IEEPA, a 1977 law designed to let presidents respond to unusual and extraordinary foreign threats. The administration used that statute to justify global and country-specific tariffs, including measures tied to fentanyl, trade imbalances and broader import policy. The Supreme Court’s majority found that the statute did not clearly authorise tariffs, treating duties as a power that belongs to Congress unless lawmakers delegate it in explicit terms.
The ruling left the administration with narrower trade tools, including tariff authorities under laws such as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Those statutes carry their own limits and procedures, making them less flexible than the emergency powers approach the White House had used for sweeping measures.
Businesses affected by the tariff programme include retailers, manufacturers, logistics groups, consumer goods importers and smaller firms that rely on overseas supply chains. For large companies, refunds could influence pricing, margins and inventory strategy. For smaller importers, delayed repayments could affect cash flow, particularly where duties were paid months before the Supreme Court ruling and later passed through only partly to customers.
The appeal also raises a broader constitutional issue over judicial remedies. Universal injunctions have drawn scrutiny across policy areas, with administrations of both parties arguing that single judges should not grant nationwide relief beyond the parties before the court. Importers counter that customs administration depends on uniform treatment and that a tariff declared unlawful should not be repaid only to companies with the resources to sue.
Topics
World