The Trump administration’s request to slow the next phase of the tariff refund battle has opened a new rift with importers, who are pressing for swift repayment after the Supreme Court struck down billions in duties. The clash now hinges on how long Washington can delay, and how quickly the trade courts are willing to move.
Administration Seeks Months-Long Pause Before Refund Proceedings Restart
The Justice Department has asked the U.S. Court of International Trade to delay reopening litigation for up to four months, according to a February 27 filing. Government attorneys argued that the scope and operational complexity of a mass-refund program justify a slower pace, rejecting requests from importers to resume proceedings as soon as possible. “Complexity in the future counsels appropriately careful process, not breakneck speed,” the filing stated.
The position marks a notable shift from earlier government arguments. During the Supreme Court phase, the administration contended that importers faced no irreparable harm, asserting they would “assuredly receive payment … with interest” if they ultimately prevailed. Now, the Justice Department is reframing the issue, citing a past mass-refund cycle that took years to complete and warning that the upcoming process will require substantial administrative planning.
Importers paid an estimated $170 billion in the contested duties before the Supreme Court struck them down, according to Bloomberg Economics. Yet the administration’s latest filing stopped short of endorsing full refunds, adding new friction to a dispute that already spans more than 2,000 pending lawsuits.
Sara Albrecht, chairperson of the Liberty Justice Center, which represented companies in the Supreme Court case, criticized the government’s request for delay, arguing that Washington is backtracking on earlier assurances. “American businesses paid money the government had no authority to collect,” she said. “That money does not belong to Washington.”
Legal Timelines Collide With Political Calculus and New Tariff Actions
The Supreme Court’s February 20 decision did not address the refund question directly, sending the matter back to the trade court for resolution. But progress has stalled because final administrative steps at both the Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remain open. Companies have asked the Federal Circuit to close its phase quickly and urged the trade court to set a schedule for refund adjudication.
The Justice Department is pushing in the opposite direction. It has asked the Federal Circuit to wait until the Supreme Court issues its formal judgment, a process that can take up to 32 days, and then impose an additional 90-day buffer. DOJ lawyers said the pause would “allow the political branches an opportunity to consider options,” signaling potential policy deliberations within the administration.
The government also pointed to President Trump’s decision to impose new global tariffs under a separate authority just days after the Supreme Court’s ruling. The filing noted that the struck-down tariffs “have been replaced by vigorous new tariffs,” though it did not clarify whether the new measures could influence refund eligibility for past payments. Recent trade reports show that the administration has been rapidly expanding the scope of its tariff tools, complicating both revenue expectations and customs processes.
The dispute is generating broader legal activity beyond importers. Several consumer groups filed proposed class actions this week seeking reimbursement for higher prices paid when businesses passed tariff costs through the supply chain, a sign of how widely the financial effects rippled across markets.
A System Bracing for Procedural Strain
One understated factor that may shape the next phase is the administrative load already bearing down on U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Recent trade reports show CBP has spent the past year managing rapid tariff reclassifications, expanded enforcement reviews, and higher audit volumes tied to shifting global trade routes. If refund processing runs parallel to that workload, pressure points inside the agency, not just the courts, could influence how quickly money moves back to businesses. It is a reminder that the next turn in this dispute may hinge as much on operational capacity as on legal argument.
