Thursday, April 24, 2025, United States Court of International Trade, New York, United States.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The Trump administration’s Justice Department is nearing its first major legal deadline after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump’s tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were illegal.
The Justice Department has until Friday to consider one of the first legal battles over refunds, where plaintiffs are seeking prompt payment of duty refunds through the Court of International Trade (CIT), which typically handles customs cases.
Trade lawyers told CNBC that there are more than 2,000 cases filed by companies with the CIT seeking tariff refunds. Back in December, the CIT put the case on hold until the Supreme Court announced its decision.
After the Supreme Court’s decision, one of the plaintiffs, VOS, filed a motion to have the case, which had been pending in the Federal Court of Appeals pending the Supreme Court’s decision, transferred to the International Trade Court as soon as possible for the payment of refunds. The federal district court sent a motion to the Department of Justice, asking the department to respond by February 27 to allow the case to be sent back to the CIT for judgment. No filings had been made by the Justice Department as of Thursday afternoon. He did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment.
The Supreme Court gave the government court 32 days to decide its next steps after the verdict.
Although the lawsuit targets only one group of small businesses, it has legal implications for many cases, the plaintiffs wrote in their filing. “This court’s prompt action in this case will facilitate the prompt disbursement of refunds to the numerous other plaintiffs who have filed IEEPA fee challenges with this court and who will bring IEEPA fee challenges with this court. … The refund process in this case can be used as a template to provide expedited relief in these other cases.”
Trade lawyers and customs experts told CNBC that about 300,000 shippers have paid duties, and some estimates suggest they could face as much as $175 billion in refunds. More companies are filing lawsuits in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, including one filed by FedEx last week after the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Justice Department’s response to the court’s request may begin to shed light on how the Trump administration intends to proceed with the refund process. President Trump said at a press conference last Friday that litigation over tariff refunds could take years. Democrats on Capitol Hill have been pressing the administration for a plan to repay the tariffs since last Friday, citing months of preparation for an adverse ruling. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview on Fox News last Friday that “it could take years to litigate and get a payout. If there is a payout, it looks like it would just be the ultimate corporate benefit.”
In their complaint, the plaintiffs say they want the government to issue “the necessary executive orders to expeditiously implement the nullification of the IEEPA tariffs, including the necessary executive orders to ensure that plaintiffs promptly receive the refunds with interest promised by the government.”
The petition says the plaintiffs do not expect the government to oppose the court, but “the administration’s recent public statements suggest that injunctive relief from this court is necessary to ensure that the government promptly honors its payment commitments.”
Trade experts said the court’s ruling did not specifically consider customs procedures, which the dissenting judge, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said could be “disruptive,” but that the refunds would be imposed on businesses.
“It is clear that importers with a record of paying illegal duties are entitled to receive what they paid,” said Pratik A. Shah, lead attorney in the Learning Resources Supreme Court case and head of the Supreme Court practice at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld. “There is no question that those who paid IEEPA duties should receive a refund. The only issue is the process by which the refund is made.”
