$175 billion tariff refund process initiated! U.S. Court of Appeals denies Department of Justice's 90-day extension request

U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Denies DOJ’s 90-Day Buffer Request; Trump Administration’s IEEPA Tariffs Ruled Unconstitutional, Over 300,000 Importers Enter Refund Process
(Background: U.S. Customs announced on the 24th that it would stop collecting tariffs declared unconstitutional by Trump, but the $175 billion in refunds remains unresolved)
(Additional context: Trump made a late-night escalation! Global tariffs increased from 10% to 15%, Bitcoin fluctuated around $68,000)

On the 2nd, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals officially rejected the Department of Justice’s request for a 90-day extension, refusing to provide a buffer period for the $175 billion tariff refund case. The court ordered immediate issuance of an enforcement order to the U.S. International Trade Court (CIT), meaning the large tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under “national emergency” declarations over the past year must now go through formal refund procedures.

This legal battle involving over 300,000 importers and more than 2,000 lawsuits enters a new chapter.

Lengthy Refund Process, Companies May Wait Over 5 Years

According to foreign media reports, the Department of Justice requested a 90-day buffer on February 27 to evaluate the plan, but the appeals court decisively rejected it. Despite the legal process now underway, the refund process remains quite lengthy.

Both the DOJ and the Trump administration stated that, due to the large number of importers and the substantial amounts involved, the entire refund process—including legal review and interest calculations—could take 3 to 5 years or more. The refund amount will include principal plus interest, and when the funds will actually reach companies remains uncertain.

Lawyer Neal Katyal advised affected businesses to consult legal counsel promptly and prepare relevant documentation early.

This ruling is not only about the flow of $175 billion but also marks a significant boundary in presidential executive power. Amid ongoing resistance from the Trump administration and heavy administrative burdens, future developments remain to be seen.

Supreme Court Declares Tariffs Unconstitutional, Policy Suffer Major Blow

Last month, on the 20th, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), including global “reciprocal tariffs” and tariffs on fentanyl, exceeded constitutional authority. The court held that the power to impose tariffs resides with Congress, and the President cannot unilaterally authorize them.

This decision invalidates tariffs imposed on over 100 countries, but does not affect tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles under Section 301 or Section 232. The total affected tariffs amount to $175 billion, with more than 2,000 companies—including FedEx, Revlon, and Costco—filing lawsuits.

In response, Trump criticized the ruling as “stupid and unreasonable,” and quickly invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose temporary 10-15% tariffs (up to 150 days, with extensions requiring Congressional approval) under the guise of “balance of payments,” attempting to maintain his trade policy stance amid market uncertainty.