{*}
Add news
March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010
August 2010
September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022 January 2023 February 2023 March 2023 April 2023 May 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024 April 2024 May 2024 June 2024 July 2024 August 2024 September 2024 October 2024 November 2024 December 2024 January 2025 February 2025 March 2025 April 2025 May 2025 June 2025 July 2025 August 2025 September 2025 October 2025 November 2025 December 2025 January 2026 February 2026 March 2026
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
News Every Day |

‘Slugfest’: Businesses gird for battle with White House over tariff refunds

Businesses are giving up hope the Trump administration will quickly issue refunds for the billions of dollars paid in tariffs the Supreme Court invalidated last month. Now they’re lawyering up and preparing for a drawn-out legal fight.

In the immediate aftermath of the Feb. 20 ruling, major trade groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called for “swift” and “seamless” refunds of more than $130 billion in duties collected during the president’s second term. The administration, however, is working to slow them down — on Monday, an appeals court denied its request to delay refund proceedings until around June — while privately weighing options to delay refunds indefinitely.

According to court filings and half a dozen trade and customs experts, more than 2,000 refund-related cases are now pending at the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade — a number that has grown by dozens since the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s global duties imposed under a 1977 emergency law. Trade attorneys say they’re fielding a surge of calls from companies racing to take legal action to keep their refund claims from expiring.

And trade lawyers and policy experts warn the current trickle of cases could become a flood if the courts and administration don’t lay out a general refund process for all importers, and instead require them to pursue repayment case by case — a scenario that could overwhelm the trade court and drag the refund fight out for years.

“There could be hundreds of thousands of suits,” said Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Learning Resources and hand2mind, a plaintiff in the case against Trump’s tariffs that reached the Supreme Court. “It would be pretty dumb to set up circumstances where they cause the Court of International Trade to be basically hobbled — brought to its knees by hundreds of thousands of pointless lawsuits — all to try and get back money that the Supreme Court says we have a right to.”

Nate Herman, executive vice president of the American Apparel and Footwear Association, which represents more than a thousand clothing and shoe brands, said his members have concluded, “This is not something that will happen in a matter of weeks — and possibly not even months.”

Companies view repayment as “nothing they can count on right now,” Herman added.

He said that while the group has no immediate plans to sue for refunds, the possibility has “been part of the discussion” as it waits to see guidance from the courts. “The atmosphere and the mood has changed.”

“This is going to be a slugfest,” predicted a senior executive at another Washington-based trade group that is also weighing potential legal action, granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal discussions. “There’s not going to be any easy or timely resolution.”

The fight for refunds is quickly becoming the next phase of the legal battle over Trump's tariffs, a signature part of his second-term agenda. With billions of dollars at stake and no repayment framework in place, the dispute risks deepening tensions between the White House and corporate America at a fragile time for the U.S. economy. It also gives Democrats another opening to hammer the administration on economic policy ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

“This deliberate effort to withhold Americans’ hard-earned dollars is unacceptable,” said Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Shaheen and several of her Democratic colleagues introduced Senate legislation last week requiring U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue full refunds with interest for the tariffs. The proposal would also direct companies that receive refunds to pass the money on to consumers.

While the legislation has no hope of going anywhere in the GOP-controlled Congress, it’s a sign of how Democrats hope to use the issue in their public messaging.

Trump is “in a real tough spot right now, because he's got the refund issue that's clearly going to be challenged in the courts,” said Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees trade policy. “If there are no refunds, he's likely to lose another court case. And if there is a refund, then he's going to get blamed if the companies don't pass it off to the consumer.”

A 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court ruled last month that Trump exceeded his authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act when he imposed the sweeping duties. But the justices did not order refunds for money already collected for those tariffs over the past year, or spell out a repayment process. Instead, it is up to the CIT to determine the next steps.

There is no formal timeline for the CIT to provide more information and schedule next steps in the legal process, although the appeals court order allows judges on the trade court to start offering more direction in the coming days or weeks on how it will handle the cases and whether it will streamline them.

The White House has blamed the Supreme Court majority for not clarifying the process in their ruling, and argued that they cannot act until the lower courts lay out a process for moving forward. “They take months and months to write an opinion and they don’t even discuss that point,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Feb. 20 shortly after the ruling came out. “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”

But trade lawyers and others say that the president has far more agency than he’s claiming. Trump’s Justice Department, after all, promised in court filings last year that it would pay back tariff fees, plus interest, to the businesses who brought the suit if the government lost the case. The administration could launch a process for doing so, if it wanted to.

That resistance is already reshaping corporate strategy.

The Japanese auto manufacturer Nissan's U.S. subsidiary joined a growing wave of post-Supreme Court lawsuits last week, seeking refunds of IEEPA tariffs Nissan North America paid on “certain imported articles” covered by Trump’s now-invalidated emergency trade orders.

U.S. shipping behemoth FedEx has also filed a refund suit since the high court’s ruling, seeking a “full refund” of duties it paid.

Under customs law, importers generally have about 314 days after goods enter the country before a tariff payment is finalized. If companies fail to challenge the duty and request a refund after the duty is finalized, they must file a formal protest and, in some cases, challenge the decision in the CIT to recover funds.

Even when protests are filed, there is “no guarantee CBP accepts them,” said Chris Duncan, a trade lawyer at Squire Patton Boggs, during a webinar on tariffs, hosted by the firm on Feb. 23. Customs could deny a protest and force importers into court, he said. “They should accept them, [but] they don’t have to.”

Matthew Seligman, founder of the firm Grayhawk Law who has represented small and midsize importers in tariff litigation, said: “There's a very, very significant risk that importers who don't have good trade counsel are going to end up in this situation where the Supreme Court said these are unlawful, but they're never going to get their money back.”

Trade lawyers say the White House could avoid that outcome by directing Customs to process refunds administratively rather than forcing companies into individual protests and court fights — a step they argue would be consistent with positions the government itself has taken in court.

After the CIT first ruled the tariffs unlawful in May, the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stay that decision while it appealed the ruling. In that filing, government lawyers argued plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable harm because they would refund any unlawfully collected duties, with interest.

“This is a pointless exercise of creating chaos and confusion and fear when it's unnecessary. If they leave it sufficiently vague, then everybody is going to file a lawsuit. Stupid,” Woldenberg said.

Daniel Desrochers contributed to this report.

Ria.city






Read also

Two Africas, One Heart

Clippers rally past depleted Warriors in Darius Garland’s debut

US Embassy Suspends Visa Services in Pakistan After Deadly Protests

News, articles, comments, with a minute-by-minute update, now on Today24.pro

Today24.pro — latest news 24/7. You can add your news instantly now — here




Sports today


Новости тенниса


Спорт в России и мире


All sports news today





Sports in Russia today


Новости России


Russian.city



Губернаторы России









Путин в России и мире







Персональные новости
Russian.city





Friends of Today24

Музыкальные новости

Персональные новости