The U.S. government has appealed against a decision by a Court of International Trade (CIT) judge who ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund tariffs deemed illegal in February. This order included refunds to all companies, regardless of whether they filed lawsuits. The appeal was lodged with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the opening brief submitted on Monday.

Government attorneys argue that the CIT judge exceeded his authority. The lawyers referenced a Supreme Court case from June 2025 about birthright citizenship, which restricted the use of universal injunctions. These injunctions typically apply rulings to all affected parties, not just those involved in a specific case. Judge Richard Eaton, overseeing the tariff lawsuits, argued that such limits don’t apply here, but the government disputes this.

The CIT’s universal injunctions, requiring the government to refund IEEPA duties for all importers, cannot possibly be squared with CASA.

This statement in the government’s brief indicates disagreement based on the court case that limited universal injunctions. Most tariff refunds have already been processed, with CBP certifying $100 billion in refunds. The controversy surrounds companies whose tariffs have completed the customs process and for whom the administrative refund option is unavailable. According to the government, these businesses can still file lawsuits to reclaim their funds.

Government lawyers noted, “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.” Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of the Center for International Law at New York Law School, expressed concern over the potential impact on smaller businesses.

“The government took this money under a law the Supreme Court said never authorized tariffs,” said Appleton. “Getting it back should not turn on whether a business could afford to sue. Refunding an unlawful tariff should not be a reward for litigating. You cannot really ask a small company to sue for money it does not know it is owed, on a deadline it has never heard of.”