Government Challenges Court’s Ruling on Tariff Refunds

The U.S. government has challenged a decision by a Court of International Trade judge who directed the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to refund all companies that paid tariffs deemed illegal, even if they did not file lawsuits. The government has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, submitting its initial brief on Monday.

In the brief, government lawyers referenced a Supreme Court case from June 2025, which involved birthright citizenship, to argue against universal injunctions. These injunctions affect all involved parties, not just those who litigate. Judge Richard Eaton, presiding over the tariff cases, disagrees with the government’s stance, asserting that the case limits do not apply here.

The government contends that Judge Eaton’s universal injunctions contradict the decision known as CASA, which restricted such injunctions. The government argues they should not refund the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) duties to all importers indiscriminately.

CBP has already issued $100 billion in refunds. The central dispute concerns companies that finalized tariff payments, for which administrative refund paths are exhausted. These companies can still file lawsuits to reclaim their payments, according to the government.

Hundreds of orders in similar lawsuits have been enforced by the CIT, but importers yet to file can still do so within the legal time frame. Barry Appleton, a New York Law School professor, believes the government has a strong legal stance. However, he cautions that smaller businesses may be disproportionately affected.

Appleton criticizes the need for businesses to litigate for refunds, saying that the initial collection of tariffs was illegal. He emphasizes that requiring lawsuits disadvantages companies unfamiliar with their entitlements or legal deadlines.