RESOLVING THE LEDGER
This is one outlet's own report from The Independent — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
See the full story · 1 sourcesWhile the judge presiding over the trade court litigation determined that restrictions regarding universal injunctions do not pertain to these tariff proceedings, the government maintains its opposition to his ruling
Bookmark Comments Go to comments Bookmark popover Removed from bookmarks
Federal attorneys contend that a Court of International Trade judge exceeded his judicial mandate when mandating U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to reimburse every firm subjected to tariffs ruled unlawful in February, including businesses that never brought legal action before the court.
Following an appeal lodged with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in June, the government submitted its primary brief on Monday.
Within the filing, state attorneys cite a June 2025 Supreme Court ruling concerning birthright citizenship. That precedent restricted nationwide or universal injunctions, legal mechanisms extending a court's judgment across all impacted entities rather than restricting relief solely to the individual plaintiffs involved in the suit.
While Judge Richard Eaton, presiding over the trade court litigation, determined that restrictions regarding universal injunctions do not pertain to these tariff proceedings, the government maintains its opposition to his ruling.
“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 court case that limited universal injunctions, the government wrote it its brief.
The majority of tariff refunds have already been paid out. CBP has already processed and certified $100 billion in refunds. At issue are companies that paid tariffs that went through the customs process and entries were finalized. There's a Congressional rule that the CBP cannot reprocess tariffs for which the administrative refund process is no longer available. Those companies are free to file a lawsuit to get that money back, the government said.
“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 in the brief.
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, said it appears the government has the better legal argument, but businesses, especially smaller businesses, might 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,” he 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.”
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.