Companies are entitled to refunds for Trump tariffs struck down by Supreme Court, judge rules

CBS ^ | March 4, 2026 | CBS

[Golden Eagle]

Companies in the U.S. that paid tariffs invalidated by the Supreme Court in February are legally entitled to refunds, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.

Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York said that U.S. importers were "entitled to benefit" from the high court's February 20 decision that President Trump lacked the authority to impose sweeping tariffs last year under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Eaton was ruling specifically on a case brought by Atmus Filtration, a Nashville, Tennessee, company that makes filters and other filtration products, claiming a right to a tariff refund.

Eaton also wrote in his decision that he alone "will hear cases pertaining to the refund of IEEPA" tariffs. The Supreme Court did not address the issue of refunds in its 6-3 decision last month.

The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on Eaton's ruling.

Trade experts estimate that the U.S. government could owe as much as $175 billion to businesses that paid IEEPA levies.

---

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clintonstooge; richardeaton; tariffs

[MrRelevant]

I think only companies that can prove they did not push the costs on to the customers, should qualify.

[CFW]

The media told me that the consumer paid the tariffs. So the companies should have to reimburse the consumers if they succeed in getting a refund.

BTW, SCOTUS should have dealt with this issue in their Opinion. Now back up the court ladder it goes until it reaches SCOTUS again.

[Chgogal]

SCOTUS should be in charge of calculating refunds. Effing morons who think so highly of their brainpower.

[MotorCityBuck]

Agreed.
However most probably just passed it to the customer.

[Golden Eagle]

The media told me that the (American) consumer paid the tariffs.

We did, according to all the post mortem analysis. Foreign companies paid the least.

So the companies should have to reimburse the consumers if they succeed in getting a refund.

That would be separate lawsuits, that we would probably have to file individually, against all the companies that charged us extra. Odds of the little guy ever getting any of that money back, are low. A cynic might say maybe that was the plan.

[Alberta's Child]

Nobody should have to prove a negative in a tax dispute. Any company or individual who has an invoice with an IEEPA tariff itemized on it would be legally entitled to a refund.

If you pay a contractor to build you a new home, and after the work is done he gets a manufacturer’s rebate on some of the materials he used, does that entitle you to a refund?

[Yogafist]

If he had other authority to place tariffs, why isn’t this moot?

[fruser1]

Find the list of companies filing suits.

If you did a lot of business with them, sue for your cut of the refund.

[escapefromboston]

If the companies passed the costs onto the consumer how would they be entitled to a refund ?

[House Atreides]

Eaton also wrote in his decision that he alone “will hear cases pertaining to the refund of IEEPA” tariffs.
*****************************************************

This Clinton appointed DemocRAT judge has been in senior status (i.e. semi-retired) for over a decade. So now he wants to be the SOLE DECIDER ON THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF OVER $175 BILLION. That is … decide what gets distributed, how it is distributed, who gets the money, how much they get and all related matters,

DISGUSTING!😞😞

[GMThrust]

BINGO

[an amused spectator]

Eaton is a Rapin Bill Clinton stooge.

No Kings!

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

Time to raise the business tax for internationally selling companies.

[joe fonebone]

I was checking that pesky constitution thingie, and I can’t find a “ US Court of International Trade” anywhere in there...

[odawg]

“I think only companies that can prove they did not push the costs on to the customers, should qualify.”

That is a very good point.

I don’t think, in the long run, that the tariffs will be refunded. No way to calculate.

[usconservative]

The media told me that the consumer paid the tariffs. So the companies should have to reimburse the consumers if they succeed in getting a refund.

We did pay the tariff's. All costs INCLUDING TARIFF'S of doing business are passed on to the end consumer.

That's ECON-101 in High School and College. I still have the Econ 101 - Econ 404 books from College!! Economics was my minor.

[TexasGator]

“I was checking that pesky constitution thingie, and I can’t find a “ US Court of International Trade” anywhere in there...”

Articl iii

[joe fonebone]

This is why I love FR. The members are here to both instruct and educate.
Having said that, there is no mention of a “US Court of International Trade” anywhere in there.
Sorry...

[Magnum44]

It will be moot.