News / Tariff plaintiffs demand injunction and fast-track refunds 

Photo: Dreamstime.com

The small-business importers that successfully challenged the Trump administration’s IEEPA tariffs are back before the US Court of International Trade (CIT), this time demanding a permanent injunction and rapid refunds. 

In a filing on Tuersday, the plaintiffs asked the three-judge panel to permanently block enforcement of all tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and to order the government to refund all duties collected, with interest. 

Their motion follows the Supreme Court’s 20 February ruling that IEEPA does not authorise the president to impose tariffs, a decision that affirmed the Federal Circuit’s invalidation of the measures. 

The proposed order attached to the motion is pretty blunt: the government should be required, within 10 calendar days, to issue the administrative orders necessary to implement the injunction and “promptly refund all tariffs paid, with interest”. 

The plaintiffs argue that the government has already committed to refunds. In seeking stays pending appeal, the DoJ told both the CIT and Federal Circuit that if the tariffs were, ultimately, held to be unlawful, affected importers would receive their money back with interest. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that way, they say that promise must be enforced. 

The filing also highlights broader stakes: more than 900 related IEEPA cases are currently queued behind this one. The refund mechanism ordered here could effectively set the template for all of them. 

The docket sets 17 March as the deadline for a government response. 

And that response will be critical. While the legality of the tariffs has been settled, the DoJ could still contest the scope of the injunction, the timing of refunds, or the mechanics and calculation of interest. 

Once the government files, plaintiffs will have an opportunity to reply. After that, the three-judge panel will decide how to proceed. 

If the Federal Circuit promptly issues its mandate and the panel is satisfied with the briefing, the court could rule on the papers, potentially within weeks. 

But if there are disputes over implementation, especially around refund logistics or interest, the CIT may schedule oral argument, pushing a decision into April. 

Even then, timing remains the real battleground. A clear injunction could force US Treasury and Customs to move quickly. A narrower or more procedural order could leave room for administrative drag, or further appeals. 

But 17 March will signal whether the fight is over, or shifting into a different battle.