Court Rules Trump-Era Tariffs Illegal, Requiring Refunds for All Importers; Justice Department Appeals

The Justice Department filed to appeal a federal judge’s order that required refunds for all importers rather than only those who sued. The administration announced the planned appeal on Friday. The Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs President Donald Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act exceeded presidential authority.

U.S. importers who did not sue now plan to seek refunds of those tariffs. S. Customs and Border Protection rolled out the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries electronic platform in April.

The system lets importers apply for a share of $166 billion in available refunds. A CBP filing dated May 26 showed the platform had accepted $85 billion in potential and certified refunds. Six billion dollars had been sent to the Treasury Department for disbursement.

The Justice Department argued that Judge Richard K. Eaton exceeded his authority by ordering universal refunds. It stated that the government cannot issue refunds to importers whose liquidation process is complete unless those importers sued to recover the money.

“CBP has no authority to reliquidate or refund money without a court order,” the Justice Department said in the filing. S. Court of International Trade on how long repayment to all 330,000 potentially eligible importers would take.

Judge Richard K. Eaton denied the Justice Department’s request to excuse Scott from testifying, writing that the testimony would help determine whether the administration intended to refund all revenue collected under the IEEPA tariffs. S.

Court of International Trade ruled last month that tariffs imposed under Section 122 were illegal. The United States Trade Representative is currently investigating tariffs under Section 301. Last June the Trump administration argued against nationwide injunctions that blocked an executive order limiting birthright citizenship.

The Supreme Court later narrowed such injunctions so that future orders would apply only to the plaintiff in each case.