FOLLOW US

A rapidly expanding wave of lawsuits over import duties gained new momentum this week as courts began shaping the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on tariff refunds, setting the stage for what could become one of the largest repayment battles in U.S. trade history.

Two pivotal decisions delivered within days of each other have emboldened companies seeking reimbursement for tariffs imposed during President Donald Trump’s latest administration, while also signaling that the legal war over refunds is only just beginning.

Courts Push Back Against Delay Tactics

The legal momentum began Monday when a federal court rejected a request from the Justice Department to freeze proceedings for 90 days. Instead, the court reaffirmed that the U.S. Court of International Trade would remain the primary venue for lawsuits seeking refunds.

The decision effectively kept the floodgates open for businesses challenging tariffs that had been imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Judge Orders Government to Issue Refunds

The drama escalated Wednesday when the Manhattan-based trade court moved swiftly.

Senior Judge Richard Eaton issued an order instructing the federal government to begin refunding tariffs deemed unlawfully collected. Although the ruling responded to a single lawsuit filed by a filtration company, its language carried sweeping implications.

Eaton wrote that “all importers of record” are entitled to the same benefit, directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to process refunds accordingly.

The judge also declared that he would serve as the sole jurist overseeing refund cases moving forward, consolidating authority over the growing wave of legal challenges.

A Rapid Turnaround in the Legal Fight

The twin rulings represent a striking shift in the dispute. Just days earlier, the Trump administration had attempted to place the entire tariff refund debate on hold for three months.

Instead, the courts signaled that the issue would move forward — and quickly.

The legal clash stems from up to $175 billion in sweeping tariffs imposed since Trump returned to office last year. The administration relied on the IEEPA statute to justify the duties, citing national economic security concerns.

But last month, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that those tariffs were unlawful. While the decision invalidated the tariffs, the majority opinion stopped short of directly addressing whether businesses must be repaid.

That omission left a massive question hanging in the air: who gets their money back — and how?

Political Pressure Mounts

The legal maneuvering is unfolding against a backdrop of rising political tensions.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren blasted the administration’s resistance to refunds, accusing the White House of attempting to stall what she called “theft in broad daylight.”

Meanwhile, lawyers representing businesses affected by the tariffs say the latest rulings could dramatically accelerate the refund fight.

Greg Husisian, a partner at Foley & Lardner who is assisting importers seeking reimbursements, said the latest order signals that trade courts intend to move aggressively.

“The trade courts are going to push these cases along as quickly as possible,” Husisian said, while cautioning that an appeal is almost inevitable. “We believe there is a 100% chance that this will be appealed.”

The Next Battlefield: Appeals Courts

Legal experts say the next phase of the dispute will likely revolve around whether the Court of International Trade has the authority to grant broad relief affecting thousands of companies.

Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, told clients in a briefing that the Eaton ruling could fundamentally reshape the legal debate.

According to Murphy, the central question now is whether a single court can authorize universal refunds for all affected importers.

He predicted the fight will return to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — the same appellate court that earlier rejected the Justice Department’s request to delay the process.

Murphy also noted that appellate courts in Washington have previously expressed skepticism toward sweeping injunctions issued by the trade court.

Businesses Celebrate — Cautiously

For companies that paid the tariffs, the ruling offered a glimmer of relief.

One advocacy group representing small businesses seeking reimbursement described the decision as “a victory for small businesses.”

Still, the organization, called We Pay the Tariffs, quickly tempered its optimism, warning that the legal struggle is far from finished.

“The job’s not done,” the group said.

Judge Eaton’s order requires the administration to act on unliquidated tariff entries and instructed that any entries not yet finalized must be recalculated without applying IEEPA-based duties.

Thousands of Lawsuits Waiting

The scope of the dispute is enormous.

More than 2,000 lawsuits are already pending over the tariffs, involving major corporations and retailers across the United States.

Companies including Costco, FedEx, and Revlon are among those seeking refunds.

The White House has not publicly commented on the latest rulings. However, officials close to the administration have indicated that the government does not plan to establish an automatic refund system.

Instead, they argue that each claim must be resolved through the courts.

President Trump has also acknowledged the drawn-out legal battle ahead.

“I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” he said previously, even suggesting on social media that the Supreme Court decision itself might warrant a “Rehearing or Readjudication.”

As businesses line up in courtrooms across the country, the Supreme Court ruling on tariff refunds may ultimately reshape not only trade policy — but also the limits of presidential power over economic emergencies.