Government attorneys have argued that a judge at the Court of International Trade exceeded his jurisdiction by mandating the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to reimburse all businesses that paid tariffs considered unlawful in February, even those that did not file a lawsuit in trade court.
The government lodged an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in June and presented its initial brief on Monday. The legal team referenced a Supreme Court case in June 2025 concerning birthright citizenship, which set limits on universal injunctions that extend a ruling to all affected individuals or entities, not just specific litigants.
Judge Richard Eaton, presiding over the tariff disputes at the Court of International Trade, contended that the constraints on universal injunctions do not apply in this scenario, a stance disputed by the government. The government’s brief stated, “The CIT’s universal injunctions, mandating the refund of IEEPA duties for all importers (including non-party importers), cannot be reconciled with CASA,” referring to the case that restricted universal injunctions.
The bulk of tariff refunds has already been disbursed, with the CBP certifying $100 billion in refunds. The focus now lies on companies that paid tariffs that underwent the customs process and had finalized entries. Due to a Congressional regulation, the CBP is restricted from reprocessing tariffs where the administrative refund avenue is no longer accessible. Affected companies are encouraged to initiate legal action to reclaim the funds.
“The Court of International Trade (CIT) has issued numerous such directives in lawsuits brought by importers seeking such relief, and importers yet to file suits have the freedom to do so within the statute of limitations,” remarked government lawyers in the brief.
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, highlighted that while the government may possess a stronger legal position, businesses, particularly smaller enterprises, could face challenges. He emphasized, “The government collected these funds under a law that the Supreme Court deemed unauthorized. Retrieving them should not hinge on a company’s ability to litigate. Refunding an illegal tariff should not depend on pursuing legal action. It is unreasonable to expect a small business to litigate for funds it is unaware of, within an unfamiliar timeframe.”
