Trump Administration Appeals Tariff Refund Ruling Using Supreme Court Case

Government lawyers representing the Trump administration have appealed a Court of International Trade (CIT) decision that ordered the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to issue refunds for tariffs deemed illegal in February. The appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in June and supported by an opening brief submitted on Monday, argues that the CIT judge overstepped his authority by mandating refunds for all companies that paid these tariffs, even those that did not initiate individual lawsuits in trade court. Central to the government's argument is a Supreme Court case from June 2025 concerning birthright citizenship, which placed limitations on the use of universal injunctions. Universal injunctions are court orders that apply a ruling to all individuals or entities affected by a law or policy, not solely the parties directly involved in the litigation. The government contends that the CIT's broad refund orders, which compel the government to refund duties collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for all importers, including those not party to the lawsuits, are incompatible with the Supreme Court's ruling in the "CASA" case that restricted such universal applications. Judge Richard Eaton, presiding over the tariff lawsuits at the CIT, has maintained that the limitations on universal injunctions do not apply to this specific case, a position the government disputes. The majority of tariff refunds have already been disbursed, with CBP having processed and certified approximately $100 billion in refunds to date. The core of the dispute involves companies that paid tariffs through the established customs process, where entries were finalized. A Congressional rule prevents CBP from reprocessing tariffs for which the administrative refund process is no longer available. For these companies, the government asserts that filing a lawsuit within the statute of limitations is the prescribed avenue for seeking reimbursement. Government lawyers stated in their brief that the CIT has already issued hundreds of such orders in suits brought by importers, and other importers are free to pursue similar legal action. Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, commented on the implications of the case, noting the government's reliance on the Supreme Court's precedent to challenge the scope of the CIT's injunctions.