Attorneys look to trade court to handle refunds after SCOTUS tariffs decision
After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs last week, trade attorneys are questioning whether the administration will be forced to return the more than $130 billion that it already collected. (Photo from Shutterstock)
After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs last week, trade attorneys are questioning whether the administration will be forced to return the more than $130 billion that it already collected.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling Friday said Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose a vast array of import levies on goods from nearly all the nation’s trading partners.
As Law.com reports, the high court, however, did not explicitly outline a refunds procedure, leaving attorneys and the U.S. Court of International Trade with little guidance on how to move forward.
Among several attorneys who spoke with Law.com after the decision, Joseph Maher said he wasn’t surprised that the high court justices didn’t address refunds in their first decision on the issue. Maher, who has worked in the federal government, including as the acting general counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, expects it to come up in future litigation at the Court of International Trade.
Chief among potential issues is whether the Court of International Trade will have to order refunds on a nationwide or individual basis, Law.com reports. The trade court ruled against the tariffs and offered nationwide relief for importers in May, but that decision was stayed pending the appeal at the Supreme Court.
If the trade court “decides that its ability to issue the injunction is narrower in scope, then we’ll have individual companies filing suit” for refunds, Maher told Law.com.
Kelsey Christensen, a member of Clark Hill who advises clients on regulatory trade compliance, told Law.com that she anticipates the trade court to quickly and efficiently deal with the refunds issue.
“Just looking at the IEEPA refund cases that have been filed at the CIT, I can already see how that court is setting itself up to be organized and structured in how it deals with these requests,” Christensen reportedly said.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision Friday, Trump noted that the justices didn’t discuss refunds, and that the issue will be “in court for the next five years,” Law.com reports.
See also:
This ‘reinvigorated’ doctrine could be used to challenge Trump’s tariffs
{ad-1]
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
