![](\"https:\/\/fortune.com\/img-assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/GettyImages-2278476869-e1780332077595.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Less than two months after the Trump administration rolled out its electronic tariff refund platform, it is now threatening to bring the operation to a standstill.<\/p>\n
The administration said on Friday it plans to appeal a federal judge\u2019s order that allowed all U.S. importers the ability to seek tariff refunds, not just those who sued the administration. The Supreme Court struck down tariffs President Donald Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February, ruling the imposition of the tariffs exceeded the president\u2019s powers.<\/p>\n
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) rolled out the refund process, also known as the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE), in April, creating an online portal through which importers could apply for their slice of the $166 billion in available refunds. According to a CBP court filing from May 26, CAPE has accepted for processing $85 billion in potential and certified refunds, including $20.6 billion sent to the U.S. Treasury Department for disbursement as of May 22. CBP did not disclose in the filing how many entities would receive those disbursements.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Department of Justice argued in a court filing that Judge Richard K. Eaton exceeded his authority in ordering universal refunds, and that the government cannot issue refunds for importers that have already completed the \u201cliquidation\u201d process, or when CBP finalized the amount of money owed to an entity\u2014unless that applicant sued to recover money it paid in illegal tariffs.<\/p>\n
\u201cCBP has no authority to reliquidate or refund money without a court order,\u201d the Justice Department said in the filing.<\/p>\n
The Justice Department also objected to Eaton\u2019s demand that CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott\u00a0 appear in the U.S. Court of International Trade to testify on how long it would take for the U.S. to repay all 330,000 U.S. importers potentially eligible for tariff refunds. Eaton denied the Justice Department\u2019s request, writing that Scott\u2019s answers would help determine whether the Trump administration planned to fully refund all of the revenue it collected from the IEEPA tariffs.<\/p>\n
Trump has repeatedly signalled he would push back against the Supreme Court\u2019s tariff ruling, saying shortly after the decision it would take years to litigate the refunds. The White House has since imposed a raft of new levies under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, used to retaliate against countries the U.S. deemed to have participated in unfair or discriminatory commerce practices, as well as Section 122, who outlines temporary import restrictions. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled last month that Section 122 tariffs were illegal, and the United States Trade Representative is currently investigating tariffs under Section 301.<\/p>\n
The White House did not immediately respond to Fortune<\/em>\u2019s request for comment.<\/p>\n Tariffs experts expected the Trump administration to go after the universal tariff refund order, and previously said <\/em>they were shocked the Justice Department had not appealed the order sooner, given the import taxes have been a cornerstone of the administration\u2019s trade policy.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s genuinely surprising that the government hasn\u2019t appealed the universal refund order already,\u201d Matthew Seligman, a federal litigator of constitutional law and principal of Grayhawk Law, told Fortune <\/em>in April. \u201cThe government has opposed universal injunctions in every single context since President Trump retook office. If the government appealed the universal refund order, it would win.\u201d<\/p>\n The Justice Department\u2019s intention to appeal would mirror the Trump administration\u2019s litigious track record with universal orders. Last June, the administration argued against nationwide inductions blocking Trump\u2019s executive order to limit birthright citizenship, and the Supreme Court indeed narrowed injunctions, requiring future court orders around birthright citizenship to apply only to the plaintiff of that particular lawsuit.<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t just a hallmark of Trump\u2019s White House, but a pattern of legal behavior usually taken by U.S. governing powers, who typically work against any restrictions that could be placed upon their powers, according to Seligman.<\/p>\n \u201cThe executive branch always seeks to retain as much freedom of action and flexibility as it can, and so acquiescing to universal injunction is just extraordinarily difficult to imagine end up being the case,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n However, an appeal of the universal refund order could also bring with it legal chaos. Eaton, the Court of International Trade judge, has previously signalled he would always rule the same way in tariff refund cases, such that if his universal order was overturned, the court would approve tariff refund eligibility for each individual importer, Lynlee Brown, EY partner of global trade, told Fortune<\/em> in April. It would effectively create an arduous process out of one that has otherwise already been streamlined by CBP\u2019s CAPE rollout.<\/p>\n Brown told Fortune<\/em> the decision to potentially jeopardize the future of tariff refunds could also alienate businesses ahead of midterm elections, as Trump\u2019s levy policy remains unpopular.<\/p>\n \u201cA lot of it is politics, right?\u201d Brown said. \u201cIt\u2019s a midterm election year. This would not be the favorable thing to do, to say, \u2018Hey, we\u2019re not going to give you your money back.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n #Trump #administration #takes #steps #appeal #ruling #allowing #importers #seek #tariff #refunds<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Less than two months after the Trump administration rolled out its electronic tariff refund platform, it is now threatening to bring the operation to a standstill. The administration said on… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5149,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[1161,7578,4902,7577,665,6501,989,2012,3938,2771,177,1159,1370,6725,840,260],"class_list":["post-5148","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-finance-news","tag-administration","tag-allowing","tag-appeal","tag-court-case","tag-donald-trump","tag-importers","tag-legal","tag-refunds","tag-ruling","tag-seek","tag-steps","tag-supreme-court","tag-takes","tag-tariff","tag-tariffs","tag-trump"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fintechpulse8.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5148","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fintechpulse8.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fintechpulse8.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fintechpulse8.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fintechpulse8.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5148"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.fintechpulse8.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5148\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fintechpulse8.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/5149"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fintechpulse8.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fintechpulse8.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fintechpulse8.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Why appeal the universal refund order?<\/h2>\n