Government fights trade judge’s order for tariff refunds to all importers

NEW YORK (AP) — Government lawyers said a Court of International Trade judge overstepped his authority by ordering the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to issue refunds to all companies that paid tariffs that were deemed illegal in February, even those that didn't file a lawsuit in trade court.

The government filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in June and filed its opening brief on Monday.

In it, government lawyers point to a case that went before the Supreme Court in June 2025, over birthright citizenship. Part of the decision in that case limited the use of universal injunctions , which apply a ruling to all people or companies affected, not just specific litigants.

Judge Richard Eaton, who is overseeing the tariff lawsuits in the Court of International Trade, has said the limits on universal injunctions don't apply in this case, but the government disagrees.

“The CIT’s universal injunctions, requiring the government to refund IEEPA duties for all importers (including non-party importers), cannot possibly be squared with CASA,” — the court case that limited universal injunctions, the government wrote it its brief.

The majority of tariff refunds have already been paid out. CBP has already processed and certified $100 billion in refunds. At issue are companies that paid tariffs that went through the customs process and entries were finalized. There's a Congressional rule that the CBP cannot reprocess tariffs for which the administrative refund process is no longer available. Those companies are free to file a lawsuit to get that money back, the government said.

“The Court of International Trade (CIT) has already entered hundreds of such orders in suits brought by importers seeking that relief, and importers who have not yet brought such suits are free to do so within the statute of limitations,” government lawyers wrote in the brief.

Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, said it appears the government has the better legal argument, but businesses, especially smaller businesses, might suffer.

“The government took this money under a law the Supreme Court said never authorized it. Getting it back should not turn on whether a business could afford to sue,” he said. “Refunding an unlawful tariff should not be a reward for litigating. ... You cannot really ask a small company to sue for money it does not know it is owed, on a deadline it has never heard of.”