NEW YORK — The U.S. government filed its opening brief on Monday, August 10, 2026, challenging a Court of International Trade order that mandated universal tariff refunds. Government lawyers argued that a Court of International Trade judge overstepped his authority by ordering U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to issue tariff refunds to all companies that paid tariffs deemed illegal in February, including those that did not file a lawsuit.

The appeal was initially filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in June 2026. In their written argument, government lawyers wrote, "The CIT’s universal injunctions, requiring the government to refund IEEPA duties for all importers (including non-party importers), cannot possibly be squared with CASA."

Senior Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade issued the original order compelling U.S. Customs and Border Protection to refund importers of record $166 billion in International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs. The U.S. Supreme Court declared these tariffs unlawful in February. Judge Richard Eaton stated that limits on universal injunctions do not apply in this case.

To support its position, the government cited a Supreme Court decision from June 2025 regarding birthright citizenship that limited the use of universal injunctions. Government lawyers also noted that alternative legal pathways remain open for affected businesses. "The Court of International Trade (CIT) has already entered hundreds of such orders in suits brought by importers seeking that relief, and importers who have not yet brought such suits are free to do so within the statute of limitations," government lawyers wrote in the brief.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has processed and certified $100 billion in tariff refunds. However, a Congressional rule prohibits U.S. Customs and Border Patrol from reprocessing tariffs for which the administrative refund process is no longer available. This statutory constraint forms a central part of the government's argument against the broad injunction.

Why It Matters

The outcome determines whether $66 billion in potential refunds remains inaccessible to companies that did not file individual lawsuits, given the statutory ban on reprocessing closed administrative claims. This case tests the application of recent Supreme Court limits on universal injunctions, potentially restricting future courts from ordering government-wide relief for non-parties. If the appeal succeeds, affected businesses must pursue separate litigation within the statute of limitations rather than relying on a single broad court order.