US Court of International Trade Orders Refund of All Illegally Collected IEEPA Tariffs

Today, in the case of Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Judge Richard K. Eaton of the US Court of International Trade ordered the Trump Administration to refund all tariffs illegally collected by the Trump Administration using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). On Monday, in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, the case I helped bring that led to the invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs by the Supreme Court, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously rejected the Trump Administration’s efforts to delay lower-court proceedings on repayment. It is notable that all 11 judges of the en banc Federal Circuit agreed, including the four who voted against us on the merits when the Federal Circuit ruled on the case last year.

The federal government owes some $175 billion in tariff refunds to importers who paid them, and they  repeatedly promised they would refund them money if they lost the case – a point which was crucial to their argument that appellate courts should stay the trial court injunction blocking further illegal tariff collection, while the litigation proceeded. Each month the government delays repayment costs taxpayers some $700 million in accumulated interest payments.

Significantly, Judge Eaton ordered payment of refunds to all those businesses that paid illegal tariffs, not just those who filed lawsuits to reclaim them:

Plaintiff’s entries are among the millions of entries that were entered subject to IEEPA
duties, which the Supreme Court ruled unlawful in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 2026 WL 477534 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026). All importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of the Learning Resources decision.

In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court held “that universal injunctions are
impermissible.” 606 U.S. 831, 865 (2025). That holding, however, does not apply to the orders that will be issued in this case. The Court’s discussion of “whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions” does not constitute a legal direction to this Court. Nearly 200 years after the Judiciary Act of 1789, the United States Court of International Trade was established pursuant to the Customs Courts Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-417, 94 Stat. 1727 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.). To that end the Court was provided with national geographic jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1581.

The Court was also given exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims like those
presented in this case. This exclusive jurisdiction was recently acknowledged by the Supreme Court. See Learning Res., Inc., 2026 WL 477534, at *6 n.1 (“We agree with the Federal Circuit that the V.O.S. Selections case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the [United States Court of International Trade].”). That is, the parties to a case in no other court will be bound by this order.

Moreover, when establishing this Court, Congress cited “[c]onsiderations of judicial
economy, and the need to increase the availability of judicial review in the field of international trade in a manner which results in uniformity without sacrificing the expeditious resolution of import-related disputes.” 126 CONG . REC. S13344 (daily ed. Sept. 24, 1980) (statement of Sen. Dennis DeConcini). The Constitution requires this uniformity. U.S. CONST . art. I § 8, cl. 1 (providing that “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”).

Finally, the Chief Judge has indicated that I am the only judge who will hear cases
pertaining to the refund of IEEPA duties. So there is no danger that another Judge, even one in this Court, will reach any contrary conclusions. To find otherwise would be to thwart the efficient administration of justice and to deny those importers who have filed suit the efficient resolution of their claims, and to deny entirely importers who have not filed suit the benefit of the Learning Resources decision.

I agree that a universal injunction makes sense here. Otherwise, we will have many months of needless litigation and delay, to the detriment of both businesses victimized by the tariffs and taxpayers who will be on the hook for additional interest payments. I think Judge Eaton’s distinguishing of Trump v. CASA’s ill-advised strictures against universal injunctions also makes sense. However, the universal injunction ruling may well be challenged on appeal. Thus, we probably have not yet seen the end of litigation over IEEPA tariff refunds.

Stepping back from the more legal issues, I would note that the Trump Administration can easily resolve the refund issue simply by giving up this legal fight and issuing refunds to all those forced to pay the illegal tariffs. That would not be hard to do. The government has a record of all the payments and who made them. Calculating interest also is not difficult. The government could just make electronic payments or send checks to all those entitled to them.

Ultimately, the government illegally seized billions of dollars and therefore must pay them back.  If I unjustly and illegally take your property, I have a duty to give it back, and pay interest. The same principle applies when the federal government does it. You don’t have to be a legal theorist or a tariff expert to grasp this simple point.

As various commentators have pointed out, it may not be possible to compensate all the victims of the illegal tariffs. For example, there is no established procedure for compensating consumers who paid higher prices, workers who were laid off because their employers had to cut back production, and more.  Even tariff-paying businesses like our clients in the V.O.S. Selections case will not be compensated for lost sales, disrupted relationships with supplies, loss of investments, and more. The noncompensable nature of harms like these is one of the reasons why courts erred when the stayed the Court of International Trade injunction against the tariffs issued when we won our initial trial court victory in May 2025, at a time when IEEPA tariffs had only been in force for a few weeks. As I explained at the time:

One factor courts consider in assessing a motion to stay is which side is likely to ultimately prevail on the merits….

Another key factor is which side is likely to suffer “irreparable harm” if they lose on the stay issue. We argue that our clients – and thousands of other businesses – will suffer great irreparable harm if a stay is imposed. They will lose sales due to higher prices, good will can be lost, relationships with suppliers and investors will be disrupted, and more. Those harms can’t be made up merely by refunding tariff payments months from now, after the appellate process concludes.

It is too late to reverse the mistake courts made on the stay issue, and too late to prevent all the harm that error caused. But the best should not be the enemy of the good. Refunding illegal tariffs to those who paid them is not perfect justice. But it’s far better than nothing.

NOTE: As I have previously noted, I am no longer a member of the V.O.S. Selections legal team, because my role ended after the Supreme Court issued its decision. Thus, I am not involved in the refund phase of this litigation.