The U.S. government faces a growing legal confrontation over who qualifies to receive refunds after tariffs imposed on imported goods were ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. At the center is a dispute on whether refund eligibility should extend to every importer who paid the tariffs or only to companies that participated in lawsuits challenging the trade measures.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has already processed claims for billions in tariff refunds after the Court of International Trade directed the agency to open applications to all importers of record. The agency launched an online system to handle refund requests, prioritizing those whose tariff assessments remained unresolved. So far, Customs confirmed claims totaling nearly $90 billion for processing and authorized the Treasury to issue refunds exceeding $20 billion.
The crux of the controversy lies in an earlier court order by Judge Richard Eaton, who demanded that Customs broaden refund access universally to all affected importers. However, the Justice Department challenged this directive, maintaining that only companies that actively litigated the tariffs in over 2,500 lawsuits should be entitled to seek reimbursement. This disagreement prompted an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will decide if the refund process must expand beyond those already involved in litigation.
Judge Eaton also summoned Customs Commissioner Rodney Scott to testify directly on the agency's compliance schedule, underscoring the court’s intent to accelerate the refund process. The Department of Justice opposed Scott’s appearance, proposing that a deputy attend instead, leading to the Federal Circuit temporarily suspending this testimony requirement. The judge subsequently agreed to hear from Susan Thomas, CBP’s executive assistant, to gather further details.
This phase of litigation unfolds as CBP refines both the procedure and timeline for distributing the refund pool estimated at $166 billion, impacting thousands of businesses that were subject to the global tariffs declared illegal. The appellate court’s ruling will have significant implications for how broadly tariff relief will be extended and may redefine the agency’s responsibilities in managing legacy tariff claims.