The U.S. government is appealing a trade court judge's order that compelled Customs and Border Patrol to issue refunds for tariffs deemed illegal earlier this year. The appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argues that the judge overstepped his authority by mandating refunds for all companies that paid the tariffs, including those that did not file a lawsuit.
In its opening brief, government lawyers cited a Supreme Court decision from June 2025 concerning birthright citizenship. This ruling, they contend, limited the use of universal injunctions—orders that apply a court's decision to all similarly affected parties, not just the specific litigants involved in the case. Judge Richard Eaton, presiding over the tariff lawsuits at the Court of International Trade, maintained that the Supreme Court's limitations on universal injunctions do not apply in this instance, a position the government disputes.
"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 government stated in its brief, referring to the case that restricted universal injunctions.
The majority of tariff refunds have already been disbursed, with Customs and Border Patrol processing and certifying $100 billion in reimbursements. The current dispute centers on companies whose tariffs were finalized through the customs process. Government lawyers noted that a congressional rule prevents CBP from reprocessing tariffs for which the administrative refund period has expired. These companies, they argue, are permitted to file lawsuits to reclaim those funds within the statute of limitations.
"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," the brief stated.
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, suggested the government likely has the stronger legal argument. However, he expressed concern that the ruling could disproportionately affect businesses, particularly smaller ones, that cannot afford to litigate.
"The government took this money under a law the Supreme Court said never authorized it. Getting it back should not turn on whether a business could afford to sue," Appleton 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."