Tariff court ruling throws another wrench into companies' trade strategies
While the White House immediately appealed the decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade, the ruling opens up the possibility that businesses will be able to apply for refunds from the government, trade and legal experts told The Hill.
'It is likely, even though the court order didn't say anything specific about refunds, that the affected companies will be able to apply for refunds. There is precedent for this,' Jeremy Horpedahl, an economist at the University of Central Arkansas and a scholar with the Cato Institute, told The Hill.
Companies that have previously overpaid on tariffs that have been stacked on top of each other as a result of multiple White House orders have been applying for refunds that U.S. Customs has been processing, Horpedahl said.
'There is grounds for a refund,' Leila Carney, an attorney with Caplin Drysdale, told The Hill. 'Whether the government will put in place an administrative process for that or whether taxpayers will have to file refund claims and refunds suits depends on how this plays out.'
Not all attorneys agree on this, however.
Andrew Gould, an attorney with law firm Holtzman Vogel, noted the decision was 'silent' on the particular issue of refunds and that it could require further legal actions to make that option available to importers.
'The court's order is silent on that issue. I think there would have to be additional actions to actually pursue that,' he said. 'I think that's going to require separate follow up to try to get that relief.'
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Commerce did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for clarification on whether and how businesses will be able to apply for refunds as a result of the decision.
Trump has pulled multiple tariff orders so far in the course of negotiations and the general economic reaction, and the Wednesday court ruling constitutes another policy reversal for Trump's trade war that businesses will have to deal with.
'It's not a sufficient basis for [companies] to make their business decisions on,' Carney said, adding that the environment of uncertainty around international trade will remain as a result of the decision.
'A question that our clients have been asking is, how do we pay? How do we know that we're paying the right amount? How do we argue if we think that we have a different product than the one that's addressed by the tariff?' she said.
The order from the Court of International trade says that the tariffs are to be 'vacated,' as they do not fall under an appropriate use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA).
'The worldwide and retaliatory tariff orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The trafficking tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders. … The challenged tariff orders will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined,' the court ruled.
The decision strikes down IEEPA tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada, as well as the 10 percent general 'reciprocal' tariff. Country-specific general tariffs would also be nullified by the decision, although those 'Liberation Day' tariffs have been paused while bilateral trade negotiations are being carried out.
The total affected duties collected this year amount to about $13 billion, according to a tally by the U.S. Customs and Border protection.
U.S. trade officials in the middle of these negotiations are ruing the decision.
'In each case, those ongoing, delicate negotiations are premised on the ability of the President to impose tariffs under IEEPA,' U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement, as reported by trade publication Inside U.S. Trade.
The ruling brings down the overall effective U.S. tariff rate, which was as high as 25 percent before China and the U.S. agreed to pause their triple-digit tariffs on each other. After the pause, the rate fell to about 13 percent and now stands around 7 percent, according to the Yale Budget Lab.
That's still the highest level in decades.
'Consumers face an overall average effective tariff rate of 6.9 percent, the highest since 1969. After consumption shifts, the average tariff rate will be 7 percent, also the highest since 1969,' members of the Yale Budget Lab wrote in a Thursday analysis.
The decision leaves in place nonemergency Section 301 tariffs on China affecting about $23.4 billion worth of goods. Section 232 tariffs on steel, automobiles and aluminum also remain in place, as do Section 201 tariffs on solar products.
Morningstar economist Preston Caldwell noted Thursday that the administration has recourse to other laws if it wants to keep tariff rates elevated despite the injunction.
'Trump could use Section 122 authority to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days,' he wrote in a commentary. 'This could fill the gap and keep tariffs elevated until Section 232 or Section 301 tariffs come in place.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


News24
26 minutes ago
- News24
No US boots on the ground in Ukraine, but Trump promises ‘vague' support
US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he had ruled out putting US troops on the ground in Ukraine, but said the US might provide air support as part of a deal to end Russia's war in the country. A day after Trump pledged security guarantees to help end the war at an extraordinary White House summit, the path to peace remained uncertain as the US and allies prepared to work out what military support for Ukraine might include. 'When it comes to security, (Europeans) are willing to put people on the ground. We're willing to help them with things, especially, probably ... by air,' Trump said in an interview with the Fox News Fox & Friends programme. Trump did not elaborate. Later, in an interview with radio host Mark Levin, Trump characterised his negotiating style in trying to end the war as 'probably instinct more than process'. Hours after Zelensky's meetings in Washington, Russia launched its biggest air assault in more than a month on Ukraine, with 270 drones and 10 missiles launched, the Ukrainian air force said. The energy ministry said the strikes caused big fires at energy facilities in the central Poltava region, home to Ukraine's only oil refinery. Trump conceded that Russian President Vladimir Putin might not want to make a deal after all, saying: 'We're going to find out about President Putin in the next couple of weeks.' The nature of US military aid for Ukraine under a peace deal was unclear. Air support could take many forms, such as missile defence systems or fighter jets enforcing a no-fly zone. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that US air support was 'an option and a possibility', but, like Trump, she did not provide any details. 'The president has definitively stated US boots will not be on the ground in Ukraine, but we can certainly help in the coordination and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies,' she said at a news briefing. Before Monday's summit in Washington, Russia, which has often said that it agreed with the idea of security guarantees for Kyiv, reiterated its long-standing position that it 'categorically' rejected 'any scenarios involving the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine'. Analysts say more than one million people have been killed or wounded in the conflict, which began with Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky hailed the White House talks as a 'major step forward' toward ending Europe's deadliest conflict in 80 years and setting up a trilateral meeting with Putin and Trump. Zelensky's warm rapport with Trump contrasted sharply with their disastrous Oval Office meeting in February. Trump discussed Budapest as a venue for a summit involving Zelensky and Putin with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on Tuesday, a White House official said. Istanbul, where delegations for the two countries have met previously, has also been mentioned, a senior administration official said. Hungary is one of the few European places that Putin could visit without fear of arrest on International Criminal Court charges as Orban maintains close ties with the Russian leader. AFP It was unclear whether Ukraine would accept Hungary as a venue. Neutral Switzerland also said it would be ready to host Putin for any peace talks. 'They are in the process of setting it up,' Trump told radio host Levin about a Putin/Zelensky meeting. But Trump cast doubt on whether he would attend. 'Now I think it would be better if they met without me. ... If necessary, I'll go,' he said. Trump, asked by Levin how he balanced the interests of all the parties involved, said: 'Well, it's probably instinct more than process. I have instincts.' There has been so far no confirmation from Russia that a potential bilateral meeting between Putin and Zelensky is being planned. After Trump's call to Putin on Monday, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said only that the discussion included the idea of 'raising the level of representatives' in peace talks from both countries - but he did not elaborate to what level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in remarks published on Tuesday that contacts involving national leaders must be prepared 'with the utmost thoroughness' and cannot be pursed for the sake of 'media coverage or evening broadcasts'. Ukraine's allies held talks in the so-called Coalition of the Willing format on Tuesday, discussing additional sanctions to crank up the pressure on Russia. The grouping has also agreed that planning teams will meet US counterparts in the coming days to develop security guarantees for Ukraine. NATO military leaders were expected to meet on Wednesday to discuss Ukraine, with US General Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expected to attend virtually, officials told Reuters. Yan Dobronosov/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images Putin has shown no sign of backing down from demands for territory, including land not under Russia's military control, following his summit with Trump on Friday in Alaska. Neil Melvin, a director at the International Security at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank, said Russia could drag out the war while trying to deflect US pressure with a protracted peace negotiation. Melvin said both Ukraine and its European allies on one side and Russia on the other were striving 'not to present themselves to Trump as the obstacle to his peace process'. 'They're all tiptoeing around Trump' to avoid any blame, he said, adding that Trump's statements on security guarantees were 'so vague it's very hard to take it seriously'.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'South Park' Turns Up The Heat On Trump With 'Perfect' Return Of Beloved Character
'South Park' released a new clip teasing Wednesday night's episode that features the return of a fan-favorite character as the show appears set to continue trolling President Donald Trump. The clip shows Towelie ― a sentient towel who loves to get high ― arriving by bus in Washington, D.C. to find the city under military control. 'This seems like the perfect place for a towel,' Towelie says as he watches a tank roll past the White House ― mimicking the real-life situation in which Trump has sent the National Guard into the city. Trump has claimed the military is needed to bring order to a city besieged by crime. However, the violent crime rate there dropped in both 2024 and 2025, leading critics to blast the move as a 'stunt.' 'South Park' has pulled a few stunts of its own since the show returned last month, mocking corporate parent Paramount for caving to Trump by agreeing to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit over '60 Minutes' that most legal observers considered frivolous. Related: Trump has claimed the settlement includes PSAs, and 'South Park' mockingly gave him one at the end of the episode, which showed a very realistic Trump stripping in the desert until he was naked, complete with a talking 'teeny tiny' penis. The show continued to go after Trump and his administration in the second episode, which focused mostly on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The next episode airs Wednesday night on Comedy Central, and will stream on Paramount+. 'South Park' Goes Scorched-Earth On Trump In Shockingly NSFW Season Premiere Aubrey Plaza Details 'Awfulness' After Her Husband's Shocking Death Elon Musk Was Not Pleased With 'Silicon Valley' Show's Portrayal Of Tech Parties

USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both.
The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers, and other users of illegal drugs, cannot own guns. WASHINGTON – The Trump administration's aggressive defense of gun rights has at least one exception. The government's lawyers want the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers – and other drug users − shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. An appeals court has said a federal law making it a crime for drug users to have a gun can't be used against someone based solely on their past drug use. Limiting the law to blocking the use of guns while a person is high effectively guts the statute that reduces gun violence, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court. They're asking the justices to overturn the appeals court's decision. Trump's Justice Department has sided with gun owners in other cases The department's defense of the law is particularly notable as the Trump administration has sided with gun rights advocates in other cases – including one in which they declined to appeal a lower court's ruling against a federal law setting 21 as the minimum age to own a handgun. More: Trump DOJ wants Supreme Court to bring down hammer on gun rules But on the issue of drug use, the government is appealing four cases to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to focus on one involving a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was charged with unlawfully owning a Glock pistol because he regularly smoked marijuana. The FBI had been monitoring Ali Danial Hemani because of his alleged connection to Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, which the government has designated a global terrorist group, according to filings. The government also alleges Hemani used and sold promethazine, an antihistamine used to treat allergies and motion sickness that can boost an opioid high, and used cocaine, although he was prosecuted based on his marijuana use. Hemani's attorneys said the government is trying to 'inflame and disparage' Hemani's character and the only facts that matter are that he was not high when the FBI found the Glock 19 in his Texas home. Hemani was charged with violating the federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who 'is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.' More: Supreme Court sides with Biden and upholds regulations of ghost guns to make them traceable Appeals court ruled past drug use not enough to stop gun ownership The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the law can't be applied to Hamani under the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision that gun prohibitions must be grounded in history that is "consistent with our tradition of gun regulation." While history and tradition support 'some limits on a presently intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon,' the appeals court said, 'they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.' The Justice Department said the appeals court got it wrong. Laws that existed at the time the country was founded restricted the rights of habitual drinkers, even when they were sober, they argued. 'And for about as long as legislatures have regulated drugs, they have prohibited the possession of arms by drug users and addicts – not just by persons under the influence of drugs,' they wrote. Law used in hundreds of prosecutions, including Hunter Biden's Since the federal government created its background-check system for firearms in 1998, the federal restriction on drug users has stopped more gun sales than any requirement other than the ban on felons and fugitives owning weapons, according to the filing. And it's used in hundreds of prosecutions each year, they said. (Hunter Biden, who was later pardoned by his father during President Joe Biden's final weeks in office, was convicted in 2024 of violating the law by purchasing a gun despite having a known drug addiction.) Hunter Biden trial recap Joe Biden's son guilty on all charges in historic gun case Hemani's lawyers argue that the government's interpretation of the law makes no sense when an estimated 19% of Americans have used marijuana and about 32% own a firearm. That means millions of Americans are violating the law that could put them behind bars for up to 15 years, they said in a filing. The appeals court, Hemani's lawyers said, correctly applied the Supreme Court's past decisions and 'common sense' to rule that 'history and tradition only supports a ban on carrying firearms while intoxicated.' In addition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two other appeals courts have issued rulings that restrict use of the federal ban: both courts ruled there should be individualized assessments of defendants' drug use to determine if their rights could be restricted. Trump administration touts program to restore gun rights The Justice Department argues that 'marginal' cases are better addressed on a case-by-case basis, through a federal program the Trump administration restarted that lets individuals petition to have their gun rights restored. The administration's championship of that program makes it less surprising that the Justice Department is vigorously defending the ban on drug users having guns, said Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, a research center. In addition, the administration has shown a broad desire to crack down on illegal drug use. 'In some sense, when those two areas are colliding – gun rights and anti-drug policies – it looks like anti-drug policies are going to win out,' he said. More: Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence Willinger said there's a relatively strong chance the Supreme Court will get involved, which the justices tend to do when a lower court strikes down or restricts the application of a federal criminal law – especially if the government asks them to intervene. But the high court could also wait to see how other appeals courts handle similar cases and how well the Justice Department's program for restoring gun rights addresses these concerns, he said. The court could announce whether it will take up the issue this fall.