A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to begin repaying what could amount to the largest forced refund in American trade history. Judge Richard Eaton of the US Court of International Trade in Manhattan ruled Wednesday that all importers who paid tariffs declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are entitled to reimbursement with interest — a decision that puts the government on the hook for at least $130 billion and potentially as much as $175 billion.
The ruling in Atmus Filtration v. United States fills a gap the Supreme Court left open when it struck down Trump’s sweeping tariffs on February 20 but said nothing about refunds, timelines, or administrative mechanics. More than 2,000 companies have since filed lawsuits seeking their money back, from Nashville filter maker Atmus claiming $11 million to major importers like Costco and FedEx.
Every Cent Must Be Returned
Eaton’s order goes beyond the individual case before him. He declared that all importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to benefit from the Supreme Court’s Learning Resources decision — whether or not they have filed suit. He directed Customs and Border Protection to liquidate all pending entries without assessing the struck-down tariffs and to reliquidate any entries where liquidation is not yet final, effectively recalculating millions of transactions.
CBP told the court that the task was of “unprecedented” scale and could require manual review of more than 70 million import declarations, requesting up to four months to assess its options. Eaton was unimpressed. “We live in the age of computers,” he said during the hearing, and scheduled a follow-up for Friday at which the government must present its refund plan. He also noted that the court’s chief judge had designated him as the sole judge for all IEEPA refund cases.
The Legal Architecture
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump held that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, ruling that taxation power belongs exclusively to Congress. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Trump had asserted “extraordinary power” without statutory support. The decision invalidated the “reciprocal” tariffs levied on nearly every country, as well as drug-trafficking-related duties on Canada, Mexico, and China.
The Federal Circuit declined the government’s request for a 90-day stay on March 2, sending the case back to the trade court. Trade lawyers expect the administration to appeal Eaton’s order.
Trump Moves to Reimpose
Even as the refund process begins, the administration is working to rebuild its tariff regime under different legal authorities. Hours after the Supreme Court ruling, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows emergency duties of up to 15% for 150 days without congressional approval. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday that the rate would rise to 15% “sometime this week” and predicted that tariff rates would return to pre-ruling levels within five months through the use of Section 232 and Section 301 authorities, which he described as “more robust” though “very slow moving.”
Two Tracks, One Collision
The result is a trade policy running on two parallel tracks: courts forcing the government to return billions in illegally collected duties, and the White House racing to reimpose equivalent levies under narrower legal tools. For importers, the question is whether refunds will materialize before the administration finds ways to delay. For trading partners, American tariff policy remains fundamentally unstable — subject to judicial reversal, executive improvisation, and a 150-day clock that only Congress can extend.
This is part of The Rio Times’ daily coverage of Latin American news and Latin American financial news.
For more context, read Brazil’s Morning Call and the Chile IPSA report.
This article was drafted with automated assistance and reviewed before publication. How we use AI · Report an error
Read More from The Rio Times