A US appeals court on Monday denied the Trump administration’s bid to delay lawsuits seeking tariff refunds — a ruling that could pave the way for companies to get back the cash they previously paid for the levies.
The Department of Justice filed a motion Friday requesting to delay cases seeking up to $170 million in refunds by up to four months after the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s tariffs on Feb. 20.
But this week, a US appeals court ordered the case to be heard by the US Court of International Trade, or CIT, where the case was filed in August.
The court’s ruling “is incredibly good news for small businesses and for the refund process,” Sara Albrecht, chairman of the Liberty Justice Center, told The Post.
The group argued the tariff case before the Supreme Court on behalf of five small businesses, including New York City wine importer VOS Selections.
“The government attempted what it likely viewed as clever maneuvering to slow things down, but I suspect that only compelled the court to act more quickly,” Albrecht said. “We’ll see how the CIT proceeds, but today’s development is a significant step forward.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a one-page ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, judges rejected the government’s argument that the “complexity” of the issue required more time. The DOJ argued that the case necessitated a “careful process, not breakneck speed.”
More than 2,000 tariff lawsuits have been filed so far, by both large companies like Costco, FedEx and Kohl’s and a growing number of small businesses. More than 300,000 importers have paid the tariffs.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision did not address the matter of tariff refunds. The opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts made no mention of whether money would have to be refunded, while conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in his dissent that “[a]s was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’”
Trump said on the day of the Supreme Court ruling, “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”
Regarding next steps, “I would expect the CIT to request a response from the government, or potentially ask for full briefing on the motion,” Albrecht said.