U.S. appeals tariff-refund order

The Trump administration said on May 30 it would appeal a federal trade court order that allowed all importers to seek refunds of tariffs the Supreme Court had already found unlawful. The appeal targets a ruling by Judge Richard K. Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade, who said the government must return duties collected under President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. U.S. Customs and Border Protection had already begun sending money back to businesses before the government disclosed its plans. The dispute now centers less on whether the tariffs were legal than on who can claim refunds and how quickly the government must pay them. ### Which tariffs are at the center of the refund fight? The Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026, in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* that tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. Judge Eaton followed with a March 4 order directing Customs to liquidate unliquidated entries without the IEEPA tariffs and to reliquidate non-final entries without them. The court said that order applied to all importers, not only the companies that had filed suit. (cnbc.com) The tariffs at issue were the broad “reciprocal” import taxes Trump imposed in April 2025 on goods from most countries, according to the court filings and subsequent reporting. Other tariffs imposed under different legal authorities were not part of this refund order. ### Why is the administration appealing now, after refunds already started? (hklaw.com) U.S. Customs and Border Protection began depositing refunds into bank accounts on May 12, about three weeks after importers and customs brokers could start filing claims. By May 22, CBP had accepted applications totaling $85 billion and had directed the Treasury Department to issue $20.6 billion in refunds, according to a legal filing cited in the case. (cnbc.com) Justice Department lawyers told Judge Eaton that they intended to appeal his “universal injunction,” arguing that he exceeded his authority by concluding that all importers of record were entitled to refunds. The government said CBP would continue moving “as quickly as it can” to process refunds in phases for businesses that had filed legal complaints asserting refund rights. (cnbc.com) ### What is the legal question in the appeal? Judge Eaton said the remedy for unlawful tariff collection was repayment by the U.S. government. The administration, by contrast, is contesting the court’s power to order across-the-board refunds beyond the named plaintiffs. The Court of International Trade said in March that its authority differs from that of federal district courts discussed in the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in *Trump v. (cnbc.com) CASA, Inc.*, and that the trade court could issue relief applying to all importers in this setting. Holland & Knight, summarizing the ruling, said the court relied on its exclusive jurisdiction over tariff challenges in reaching that conclusion. ### What does this mean for importers waiting on money? More than 330,000 importers may be eligible for refunds, Judge Eaton said in ordering further explanations from Customs. The court wants to know how long it would take the government to repay all eligible importers and whether it should require a faster timetable. (hklaw.com) For companies that import consumer goods, parts or industrial inputs, the refund process has already become an operating issue because the payments affect cash balances and landed-cost calculations. CBP’s filing shows that the sums involved are large enough to matter immediately for businesses that paid the duties and are now waiting to learn whether the broader claims process will continue uninterrupted. That connection between refunds and business planning is an inference based on the scale and timing of the payments already described in court filings and reporting. (cnbc.com) ### What happens next in court? June 9 is the next date on the calendar in the Court of International Trade, where Judge Eaton has sought testimony about the pace of refunds. The administration objected to Eaton’s demand that CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott appear personally, saying a high-ranking presidential appointee could not be compelled to testify and asking that deputies appear instead. (cnbc.com) The appeal notice filed by the Justice Department means a higher court will now be asked to decide whether Eaton could extend refund relief to all importers that paid the invalidated IEEPA tariffs. Until that question is resolved, CBP’s phased refund process and the June 9 hearing remain the next concrete steps in the case. (cnbc.com)