(UNITED STATES) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s request to delay implementation of the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling, clearing the way for tariff refund proceedings to move forward immediately.
Government lawyers had asked the appeals court to wait 90 days before issuing its mandate after the Supreme Court invalidated most of the president’s tariffs.
The administration told the Federal Circuit it wanted time “to allow the political branches an opportunity to consider options,” following the Supreme Court’s decision, but the court declined the request on Monday.
The Supreme Court ruled on February 20 in a 6-3 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the president cannot claim the power to “impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time” based on IEEPA’s language about regulating importation.
That holding limited the use of emergency-economic powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as a basis for broad presidential tariffs.
The Supreme Court’s ruling left unresolved the separate question of refunds, which now returns to the U.S. Court of International Trade in cases brought by small businesses that challenged Trump’s global tariffs.
By declining to pause its mandate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit accelerated the path back to the trial court, where judges can begin crafting relief after the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Federal Circuit’s order removed the court-ordered waiting period the government sought and, as a result, refund and other relief litigation can proceed without that delay.
Lawyers for the small businesses urged the appeals court to move immediately, telling judges that “nothing about the refund issue warrants any delay.”
Those lawyers also argued that “the proper time to issue the mandate is now,” pressing for faster action after the February 20 ruling.
Neal Katyal, one of the attorneys representing the small businesses, said his team “will be proceeding immediately to get the refunds Americans are owed.”
The request the Trump administration filed on Friday sought time for elected branches to weigh responses after the Supreme Court cut back tariff authority tied to IEEPA.
Monday’s rejection means the litigation focus shifts back to the U.S. Court of International Trade, which now faces the practical task of shaping what relief, if any, importers can obtain.
Small businesses that won at the Supreme Court now want the trade court to translate the ruling into orders that address what happens to money collected under tariffs the justices invalidated.
The Supreme Court itself did not decide how refunds should work, and the February 20 decision did not resolve what the government must pay back to companies that paid the tariffs.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing in dissent, raised the stakes of what could follow, suggesting the federal government “may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs.”
Kavanaugh also pointed to estimates exceeding $200 billion in tariffs collected in 2025, linking the refund question to the scale of collections tied to the challenged program.
Justice Department lawyers, in turn, estimated the refund process could take years to complete.
That projected timeline sits in tension with the plaintiffs’ push for speed, which they framed in their argument that there was no reason to wait before issuing the mandate.
The dispute over timing also reflected a procedural reality after a Supreme Court defeat: once the mandate issues, lower-court proceedings begin moving again.
In this case, that lower-court venue is the U.S. Court of International Trade, which handles the refund lawsuits and other challenges brought by importers and businesses.
The Supreme Court’s ruling invalidated most of the president’s tariffs, but the material provided did not describe which parts of the overall tariff program, if any, remain unaffected.
Even with that uncertainty, the Supreme Court’s core legal conclusion was clear: IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
Roberts’ description of the power the president could not claim under IEEPA — tariffs from any country, on any product, at any rate, for any amount of time — captured the majority’s reasoning for limiting the statute as a tariff tool.
The Federal Circuit’s procedural ruling did not revisit the February 20 merits decision, but it mattered because it dictated how fast the next stage begins.
That next stage centers on what relief the U.S. Court of International Trade should order for challengers who say they paid unlawfully imposed tariffs.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers sought urgency, arguing to the Federal Circuit that the mandate should issue immediately so the trade court can begin that work.
Katyal’s statement signaled that the small-business challengers plan to move quickly in the trade court now that the requested pause has been denied.
The potential reach of refund litigation extends beyond the original challengers because multiple major companies have already filed lawsuits seeking refunds.
FedEx, Revlon, and Costco are among the companies that filed such suits.
Court filings have expanded across industries, and the volume of litigation has grown, with more than 1,000 cases reportedly filed in the Court of International Trade.
That caseload forms the backdrop for the trade court’s next steps, as it confronts a wide set of plaintiffs asking for the same basic outcome: refunds of tariffs paid under the IEEPA-based program the Supreme Court largely struck down.
Justice Department lawyers’ estimate that refunds could take years underscored the administrative and legal complexity now facing the government and the courts.
Kavanaugh’s dissent, by warning that the government “may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs,” highlighted how the Supreme Court’s statutory holding could translate into substantial financial exposure.
The Trump administration’s unsuccessful bid for 90 days more time showed it was seeking room for policymakers to decide how to respond after the Supreme Court narrowed presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
With the Federal Circuit refusing that pause, the timeline now turns on what the U.S. Court of International Trade does next as it begins crafting relief in the refund cases.
Further appeals are possible in trade cases, but the material provided did not describe any next appellate step beyond Monday’s mandate decision.
For now, the most immediate consequence of the Federal Circuit’s order is procedural and practical: the cases return to the Court of International Trade, and the challengers say they are moving “immediately to get the refunds Americans are owed.”
