The Trump administration is preparing to appeal a federal court order requiring the government to refund tariffs collected from hundreds of thousands of importers, setting up a new legal battle over the consequences of one of the most consequential Supreme Court rulings of the year.
The dispute follows the Supreme Court’s February decision striking down the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs President Donald Trump imposed on goods from nearly every major trading partner in April 2025. The justices concluded that the president lacked the constitutional authority to impose the higher import taxes without congressional approval, explained The Associated Press.
The ruling did not merely invalidate the tariffs going forward. It left the federal government responsible for returning an estimated $166 billion collected from American businesses during the months the duties remained in effect.
Until recently, the refund process appeared to be moving forward with relatively little disruption. Importers and customs brokers began submitting claims through an online system in April, and successful applicants began receiving money in their bank accounts on May 12. By May 22, U.S. Customs and Border Protection had accepted applications seeking approximately $85 billion in reimbursements—more than half of the total amount the agency estimates it owes. The Treasury Department had been directed to issue $20.6 billion in refunds as of that date.
The new legal conflict concerns the breadth of the government’s obligation. The Trump administration has argued that refunds should be processed for businesses that filed complaints in the U.S. Court of International Trade. U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Richard K. Eaton, however, concluded that the Supreme Court decision entitles all affected companies to reimbursement, regardless of whether they filed lawsuits.
That distinction carries enormous practical consequences. Approximately 330,000 importers may be eligible for repayment.
The Justice Department has objected to what it described as a “universal injunction” and announced plans to appeal Eaton’s order. Administration lawyers also resisted the judge’s demand that Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott appear in court to explain how long it would take to repay all eligible importers. They argued that Scott, as a senior presidential appointee, should not be compelled to testify and requested that one or two deputies appear in his place.
At the same time, the administration maintained that Customs and Border Protection would continue moving “as quicky as it can to process refunds in a phased approach” for businesses that filed trade court complaints.
Eaton has scheduled a June 9 hearing to consider whether the government should be required to take additional steps to accelerate the refund process. In response to the administration’s objections, the judge emphasized that the case involves $166 billion in tariffs that the government collected unlawfully and is now obligated to return.
In a way, these refunds will act as an economic stimulus. For major retailers, the repayments could provide an opportunity to lower prices. Walmart’s chief financial officer said the company plans to pass some of the savings on to customers through price cuts, although the maximum amount the retail giant could recover represents less than half of 1% of its $483 billion in annual U.S. sales.
For smaller companies, the consequences are more immediate. Many importers accumulated debt, delayed investments, or struggled to maintain operations after more than a year of higher costs and economic uncertainty. Some businesses have said they plan to use the refunds to cover remaining tariffs or prepare for future duties. Others simply need the money to keep their businesses running.
