Trade court orders tariff refunds in setback for Trump administration

A trade court has cleared the way for businesses to receive refunds for tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down last month.

A federal judge ruled that U.S. importers are entitled to refunds for tariffs invalidated by the Supreme Court, following the court's decision that President Trump lacked the authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

A U.S. federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to delay tariff refunds, potentially leading to over €110 billion in repayments to businesses after the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs.

A federal court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to slow the process of refunding billions of dollars' worth of tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down as illegal last month.

A federal judge in New York ruled that companies that paid now-invalidated tariffs are entitled to refunds, setting in motion what could become one of the largest repayment exercises in recent US trade history.

A federal judge in New York ruled that companies that paid now-invalidated tariffs are entitled to refunds, setting in motion what could become one of the largest repayment exercises in recent US trade history.

A federal judge in New York has ruled that companies are entitled to refunds for tariffs imposed by former President Trump under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that were recently struck down by the Supreme Court. The Court deemed the tariffs unconstitutional, asserting that only Congress has the authority to set taxes. Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade confirmed that all "importers of record" can claim refunds and will oversee related cases. This comes after the government collected over $130 billion in these tariffs, with potential refunds reaching $175 billion. The ruling clarifies the refund process, which was not addressed in the Supreme Court's decision, and orders U.S. Customs to stop collecting the invalidated tariffs on goods in the liquidation process and revise assessments for finalized cases. Despite the ruling, the government may appeal or seek a stay to delay implementation. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection must now develop a way to handle mass claims – a complex administrative task. This decision was based on a case brought by Atmus Filtration and follows another recent court rejection of attempts to delay refunds.

A federal court has rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to delay the refunding of billions in tariffs deemed illegal by the Supreme Court. On February 20, the Supreme Court ruled that former President Trump’s tariffs on most global imports were unlawful. Although the ruling did not address refunds, it opened the door for importers to seek reimbursement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied the Justice Department’s request for a 90-day delay and sent the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York to determine how refunds will proceed. The government had collected over $130 billion in tariffs by December, with potential refunds reaching $175 billion, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. Legal experts anticipate the Court of International Trade will move quickly and demand clarity from the administration. Questions have arisen regarding how the government will fund these massive refunds, and speculation exists that new tariffs may be introduced partly to replenish Treasury funds. Legal professionals acknowledge the unprecedented nature of the situation as they prepare to guide their clients through the complex refund process.

FedEx announced that it intends to return any tariff refunds it receives to the shippers and consumers who paid them, following a Supreme Court decision that declared tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as illegal. The company made this commitment after filing a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade to assert its right to such refunds. Over 1,000 companies, including major firms like Costco and Revlon, have taken similar legal actions to recoup the costs of these now-illegal tariffs. Although the Supreme Court invalidated the tariffs, it did not establish a system for issuing refunds, leaving uncertainty around the timeline and process. FedEx stated it would await additional guidance from the government and the court to determine how to proceed. Efforts to initiate a refund mechanism are underway, with the Liberty Justice Center and co-counsel Neal Katyal filing motions to prompt action in the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of International Trade. A government response is expected soon. FedEx emphasized its commitment to transparency and clear communication as the process unfolds.

Retail customers have initiated proposed class-action lawsuits against FedEx and EssilorLuxottica, the maker of Ray-Ban, seeking refunds for tariffs they paid on imported goods. These legal actions follow a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), citing that he lacked the authority to do so. The overturned tariffs affected imports worth roughly $130 to $175 billion. More than 1,000 companies, including major retailers like Revlon and Costco, have filed suits in the U.S. Court of International Trade to secure potential reimbursement. One plaintiff, Matthew Reiser, is challenging FedEx despite the company’s promise to refund tariffs if allowed by future legal guidance. Another plaintiff, Nathan Ward, alleges that Ray-Ban continued charging inflated prices due to tariff surcharges without offering refunds. Legal experts suggest more consumer lawsuits could follow, especially against companies that itemized tariffs on receipts, as consumers seek a share of any refunds resulting from the invalidated tariffs.

In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated many of former President Trump's tariffs, prompting widespread uncertainty over the fate of the $126 billion collected, including $4.2 billion paid by Ohio businesses between February and December 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Court did not provide guidance on whether or how the collected funds should be refunded, leaving the decision to the Trump administration. This ambiguity has sparked political division, with Ohio lawmakers split along party lines and Senate candidate Sherrod Brown proposing a $1,336 refund per Ohio household. Economists caution that the refund process may be complex and lengthy, potentially taking up to 18 months to resolve through the federal court system. The ruling leaves millions across the country unsure if or when they will recover any of the tariff payments.