Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
•Federal Express sued the U.S. government, seeking a “full refund” of the money the shipping giant paid for tariffs unilaterally imposed by President Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court last week ruled were illegal.
The IEEPA tariffs were deemed illegal by SCOTUS. I'm not a legal expert but it seems that businesses who paid these tariffs (i.e., import taxes) would be eligible to receive refunds after filing lawsuits regardless of U.S. Judge Richard Eaton's ruling.
The judge's ruling may expedite refund payments and make the entire process less cumbersome. This is a very positive development for many smaller companies.
"More than 300,000 importers paid the tariffs. The vast majority of importers are smaller businesses and they are hoping that Customs officials adopt a simple, low-cost system to pay reimbursements. Many told Reuters they might abandon their refund if they had to sue or go through a cumbersome Customs administrative process."
Of course, the Trump administration will do everything it can to hinder refund payments!
So I'll be awaiting my refund from all the businesses that jacked their prices as much as (51% as per AI). But if I have to sue, forget it ! Is he in jail yet?!
From Heather Cox Richardson, bolded text added by me.
"After the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump immediately imposed new tariffs of 15% on all global trade, using as justification Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. As Lindsay Whitehurst and Paul Wiseman of the Associated Press noted, this is awkward because the Department of Justice under Trump argued in court last year that Trump had to use the IEEPA because Section 122 did 'not have any obvious application' in fighting trade deficits."
"Today the Democratic attorneys general of more than twenty states filed a lawsuit to stop the new tariffs imposed under Section 122. 'Once again, President Trump is ignoring the law and the Constitution to effectively raise taxes on consumers and small businesses,' New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement Thursday."
Customs officials will head to court Friday to lay out ideas for how to process refunds for billions of dollars of tariffs invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Judge Richard Eaton, who serves on the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, began managing the process this week.
He scheduled the closed-door session after the Trump administration signaled that refunds will take time. At an earlier hearing, the judge said the government’s position amounts to calling refunds “really, really hard.”
“So, on Friday, we’re going to hear at least the initial ideas from the customs service as to how this will proceed,” Eaton said.
More than 2,000 companies have filed lawsuits seeking refunds of Trump’s sweeping levies imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Last month, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the statute doesn’t authorize tariffs. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5770188-supreme-court-tariff-refunds/
I just asked Claude about the possible legal paths for all of this-
Are decisions by the US Court of International Trade appealable to the Supreme Court?
Yes, but not directly. Here's the path:
US Court of International Trade (CIT) → decisions are appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over CIT appeals. Federal Circuit → decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court, but only by petition for a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court has full discretion to grant or deny. In practice, cert is rarely granted.
So the Supreme Court is technically available as a final stop, but the Federal Circuit is where the vast majority of CIT cases actually end. The CIT itself is an Article III court with nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions involving international trade law — tariffs, customs, trade remedies, and so on — so its decisions carry real weight even before any appeal.
Is there a specific type of CIT case or ruling you're thinking about?
Just wondering about the situation regarding refunds of the illegal tariffs could that bounce back to the supreme court? It sounds like the Supremes want nothing more to do with this one.
That's a reasonable read. A few threads worth pulling on here:
The Federal Circuit is where any CIT tariff refund ruling would land first on appeal. The administration would almost certainly appeal an adverse ruling, so that's the near-certain next stop.
From there, a cert petition to the Supreme Court is possible, but you're right that the Court's recent behavior on the tariff emergency cases suggests real reluctance to wade in — they declined to block the tariffs on an emergency basis, which some read as the Court not wanting to be the ones to pull this particular pin. Whether that reluctance would extend to a refund case (which is a different posture — remedies rather than injunctions) is an open question.
There's also a practical complication: the scale of potential refunds is enormous. If the CIT's ruling stands and refunds are owed to thousands of importers, the administration faces either compliance or a constitutional confrontation over whether the executive can simply refuse to pay court-ordered refunds. That's a separation-of-powers scenario so combustible that it might actually force the Supreme Court's hand — they may not get to stay on the sidelines if it escalates that far.
So the short version: the Supremes may want nothing to do with it, but the refund question might not give them that luxury if the lower courts rule against the administration and enforcement becomes the issue.
Are you following this for general interest or tracking it for business/financial reasons?
Just general interest
Same here — it's genuinely one of the more constitutionally interesting situations in a while. The collision between emergency economic powers, Article III courts, and a potential standoff over actually paying court-ordered refunds touches some pretty fundamental questions about how the three branches check each other.
The IEEPA tariff authority claim in particular is novel enough that there's no clean precedent — which is part of why the lower courts are the real action right now. The Federal Circuit is going to have to do some serious legal architecture work regardless of how it rules.
Worth keeping an eye on. The CIT moved surprisingly fast on the initial ruling, so the appellate timeline might not drag out as long as these things usually do.
Comment: • "Are you following this for general interest or tracking it for business/financial reasons?" • "Just general interest" • "Same here"
The Supreme Court ruled the IEEPA tariffs were illegal. Shouldn't U.S. businesses that paid IEEPA tariffs be entitled to full refunds by default? If not, what is the legal rationale?
"Shouldn't U.S. businesses that paid IEEPA tariffs be entitled to full refunds by default?"
I agree that they should but I also think that the customers who ultimately paid for the tariffed product should also be refunded by the business/company who passed the cost along. What's the over/under on that happening?
It would be equitable for customers who paid IEEPA tariffs to receive refunds. The likelihood of this happening, unfortunately, is infinitesimally minute.
Comments
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/23/fedex-trump-trade-tariffs-refunds-supreme-court-lawsuit.html
•Federal Express sued the U.S. government, seeking a “full refund” of the money the shipping giant paid for tariffs unilaterally imposed by President Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court last week ruled were illegal.
"The Supreme Court, in its ruling on Friday, said the Court of International Trade has “exclusive jurisdiction” over the IEEPA tariffs."
Translation: "Don't even think about bothering us with this crap again".
Refunds must commence.
I'm not a legal expert but it seems that businesses who paid these tariffs (i.e., import taxes)
would be eligible to receive refunds after filing lawsuits regardless of U.S. Judge Richard Eaton's ruling.
The judge's ruling may expedite refund payments and make the entire process less cumbersome.
This is a very positive development for many smaller companies.
"More than 300,000 importers paid the tariffs.
The vast majority of importers are smaller businesses and they are hoping that Customs officials
adopt a simple, low-cost system to pay reimbursements.
Many told Reuters they might abandon their refund if they had to sue
or go through a cumbersome Customs administrative process."
Of course, the Trump administration will do everything it can to hinder refund payments!
"After the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump immediately imposed new tariffs of 15% on all global trade,
using as justification Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. As Lindsay Whitehurst and Paul Wiseman
of the Associated Press noted, this is awkward because the Department of Justice under Trump
argued in court last year that Trump had to use the IEEPA because Section 122 did 'not have
any obvious application' in fighting trade deficits."
"Today the Democratic attorneys general of more than twenty states filed a lawsuit to stop
the new tariffs imposed under Section 122. 'Once again, President Trump is ignoring the law
and the Constitution to effectively raise taxes on consumers and small businesses,'
New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement Thursday."
Judge Richard Eaton, who serves on the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, began managing the process this week.
He scheduled the closed-door session after the Trump administration signaled that refunds will take time. At an earlier hearing, the judge said the government’s position amounts to calling refunds “really, really hard.”
“So, on Friday, we’re going to hear at least the initial ideas from the customs service as to how this will proceed,” Eaton said.
More than 2,000 companies have filed lawsuits seeking refunds of Trump’s sweeping levies imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Last month, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the statute doesn’t authorize tariffs.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5770188-supreme-court-tariff-refunds/
Are decisions by the US Court of International Trade appealable to the Supreme Court? Just wondering about the situation regarding refunds of the illegal tariffs could that bounce back to the supreme court? It sounds like the Supremes want nothing more to do with this one. Just general interest
Comment:
• "Are you following this for general interest or tracking it for business/financial reasons?"
• "Just general interest"
• "Same here"
Good grief!
Shouldn't U.S. businesses that paid IEEPA tariffs be entitled to full refunds by default?
If not, what is the legal rationale?
I agree that they should but I also think that the customers who ultimately paid for the tariffed product should also be refunded by the business/company who passed the cost along.
What's the over/under on that happening?
The likelihood of this happening, unfortunately, is infinitesimally minute.