Court clears path for tariff refunds despite Trump administration's bid for delay

A federal appeals court on March 2 denied a request from the US Department of Justice to delay the start of the refund process following the Supreme Court's decision overturning President Donald Trump's country-specific tariffs.

The move greenlights the next steps for companies to receive refunds totaling billions of dollars.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the Trump administration's appeal for a delay. The court's decision allows the US Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court where Trump's tariffs were first deemed unlawful, to begin determining the mechanics of refunds.

While the Supreme Court on Feb. 20 determined that Trump exceeded presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, it did not resolve how importers will recover refunds.

Importers of pig iron and iron ore stand to benefit from refunds, though other metals and energy commodities were exempt from the varying country-specific rates. Importers of certain agricultural products paid IEEPA tariffs until November 2025, when Trump exempted many of them after reaching trade agreements with over a dozen countries.

"The government's position in the pending refund lawsuits has been that they won't challenge the court's authority to order Customs to process refunds, but that doesn't mean they won't argue that the court shouldn't issue refund orders," said Justin Angotti, an associate in the global regulatory investigations and enforcement group at law firm Reed Smith.

The Department of Justice filed a motion on Feb. 27 requesting the appeals court wait 90 days before issuing a mandate on refunds "to allow the political branches an opportunity to consider options," the filing said. Government lawyers indicated the refund process could take years, citing a prior tariff refund case from 1998 where refunds took seven years and were substantially less in value than what's at stake with the IEEPA tariffs.

US Customs and Border Protection collected $142 billion in duties under IEEPA in 2025, according to an analysis of CBP data by the Yale University Budget Lab.

US imports faced a weighted-average applied tariff rate of 13.8 percent while the country-specific tariffs were in effect, according to estimates from the Tax Foundation, a non-profit think tank. While there were certain exemptions, products like electronic goods, textiles and apparel, varying manufactured components and certain agricultural products faced the varying rates. Of the top 10 imports to the US by value, nearly half were subject to IEEPA tariffs, including nuclear reactors, electrical machinery and equipment, plastics and various organic chemicals.

The Trump administration has sent mixed signals on whether refunds would be honored, with Trump telling reporters when asked about refunds, "We'll end up being in court for the next five years".

"Is a Rehearing or Readjudication of this case possible???"" Trump wrote in a Feb. 27 Truth Social post, adding that the Supreme Court decision allows for the return of billions of dollars "to countries and companies that took advantage of us for decades."

However, in the run-up to the Supreme Court decision, the Department of Justice repeated in several court filings that it would not object to reliquidating entries if the country-specific tariffs implemented under IEEPA are found to be unlawful.

Neither US Customs and Border Protection nor the White House responded to requests for comment.

The conflicting messages signal potential government pushback on issuing refunds and raise questions over potential legal battles that could determine how, and how quickly, importers receive funds, trade attorneys told Platts, part of S&P Global Energy.

Legal escalations in the refund process

Importers can pursue refunds in two ways – the legal route with the Court of International Trade or the administrative route with US Customs and Border Patrol.

US Customs has a pre-existing administrative correction process. Importers can file a post-summary correction if an entry is considered unliquidated, meaning it has not been finalized and is within a 314-day window of being filed. Customs, following the Supreme Court's decision, has been denying post-summary corrections filed by importers.

If the entry is liquidated, or finalized after 314 days, importers have a 180-day window to file a protest. Customs has two years to process protests.

However, there's a legal question as to whether the Supreme Court's decision determining the country-specific tariffs unlawful is considered a "protestable event," said Ashley Akers, who co-leads the Customs and Trade Fraud Enforcement Defense Team at the law firm Holland & Knight.

Customs is considered an executive agency under the purview of the president, meaning it will follow Trump's guidance if he orders a halt on refunds. Importers have a second option to file a complaint with the Court of International Trade, Akers said.

"If you go to the CIT, now you have court oversight in the judicial branch, which is obviously separate from the executive," Akers said.

Legal questions over new tariffs

Other trade tools Trump is deploying in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision could also face litigation.

Trump signed a presidential proclamation imposing a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes a president to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days. At the end of that window, Congress would have to vote to extend the tariff for it to remain in effect.

The Section 122 tariff would apply to $1.2 trillion, or 34%, of annual imports, according to estimates from the Tax Foundation.

There are legal questions with the implementation of Section 122 tariffs on the basis of the law, which focuses on "balance of payment" issues and may not be comparable or justifiable to apply to trade deficits.

Trade attorneys said they'd be surprised if the courts would issue an injunction for a tariff that only lasts five months. However, if Trump seeks to extend the 150-day time frame or issue a new proclamation to reset the clock, it's more likely to face litigation.

Trump also announced his administration would be issuing several investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on an expedited timeline. These investigations usually take around 12 months.

Section 301 tariffs have been tested in court and provide the president with a large amount of discretion, Ryan Majerus, a partner on King and Spalding's international trade team, said at the Washington International Trade Conference on Feb. 24.

"I still think it's a very uphill battle in terms of any kind of legal challenge... there's just so much authority under 301 from the executive," Majerus said. "But I do think we're likely to see more efforts at this stage now that IEEPA has been challenged."