(WASHINGTON, USA) – The United States government is fighting a trade court order that would require tariff refunds to all importers, including those that did not file lawsuits. Government lawyers filed an opening brief on Monday in an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The appeal follows a February ruling that declared certain tariffs illegal. Judge Richard Eaton of the Court of International Trade ordered United States Customs and Border Protection to issue refunds to all companies that paid those tariffs, not only the companies that brought legal challenges.
The government filed its appeal in June. Its lawyers argue that Judge Eaton overstepped his authority. They point to a Supreme Court case from June 2025 over birthright citizenship. Part of that decision limited the use of universal injunctions, which apply a ruling to all people or companies affected rather than only the specific parties in a case.
Judge Eaton has said the limits on universal injunctions do not apply to the tariff refund cases. 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 government wrote in its brief, referring to the Supreme Court case that limited universal injunctions.
Most tariff refunds have already been paid out. Customs and Border Protection has processed and certified 100 billion US dollars (about 137 billion Canadian dollars, or roughly 79 billion British pounds) in refunds.
The remaining dispute involves companies whose tariffs went through the customs process and had their entries finalised. A Congressional rule prevents Customs and Border Protection from reprocessing tariffs for which the administrative refund process is no longer available. The government said those companies are free to file lawsuits to recover the money.
“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.
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, said the government appears to have the better legal argument. However, he warned that businesses, especially smaller firms, could suffer.
“The government took this money under a law the Supreme Court said never authorized (tariffs). Getting it back should not turn on whether a business could afford to sue,” Appleton 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.”