Federal Circuit denies 90-day stay, clears more than 2,000 tariff refund suits

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump administration's emergency motion for a 90-day stay of the Supreme Court ruling that struck down certain emergency tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a move that immediately greenlights proceedings in more than 2,000 refund lawsuits at the U.S. Court of International Trade.

The Supreme Court in Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Trump held by a 6-3 vote that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose sweeping global tariffs, concluding that Congress, and not the president, has the power to create new taxes. The majority wrote, “Based on two words separated by 16 others in … IEEPA, ‘regulate’ and ‘importation’–the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

The ruling left unresolved how, or whether, the roughly $130 billion estimated to have been raised under those levies will be returned to companies and consumers. The Federal Circuit’s refusal to pause the Supreme Court decision accelerates litigation over those refunds at the Court of International Trade, where plaintiffs have filed more than 2,000 suits seeking reimbursement for tariffs they paid.

Earlier appellate filings reflect a turbulent procedural history. The Government appealed lower-court injunctions the same day they were entered, sought stays pending appeal, and won an earlier temporary stay as the Federal Circuit consolidated appeals and expedited briefing and argument. The court “also sua sponte decided to assign the case to the court en banc,” a panel filing said, citing the cases’ exceptional importance. Case docket entries include V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, No. 2025-1812, 2025 WL 1527040 (Fed. Cir. May 29, 2025) and related filings (Case: 25-1812 Document: 159 Page: 16 Filed: 08/29/2025).

The immediate legal effect is procedural: plaintiffs who sued for refunds at the Court of International Trade can now press forward with discovery and merits briefing in dozens of consolidated dockets. The practical impact is economic and social. Businesses and households that absorbed tariffs ranging from single digits to as high as 50 percent on many imported goods saw costs rise; the Supreme Court’s ruling places those payments at issue and raises the prospect of large-scale refunds or prolonged litigation that could leave money tied up for years.

Former President Donald Trump told reporters he expected “any potential refunds to be locked up in litigation for years.” Treasury Secretary Bessent warned that the issue of refunds “could drag on for years,” and said revenues already brought in through the IEEPA tariffs were “in dispute” because the Supreme Court did not provide instructions on refunds. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said on January 9, 2026, “Our expectation is that we’re going to win, and if we don’t win, then we know that we’ve got other tools that we can use that get us to the same place,” and added that the administration had a backup plan that could put tariffs “back into place almost immediately, should the Supreme Court rule against us.”

The dispute touches broader questions about separation of powers and who controls trade- and revenue-setting authority, but it also matters to equity and public welfare. Low-income families and small businesses that bore higher import costs have limited means to absorb sustained price shocks, and delays in refunds could deepen economic strain for those communities. Some tariffs imposed by the administration were not based on IEEPA and may remain in force; others are now vulnerable to reversal, with billions at stake.

For counsel and trade observers, one trade-law firm included contact information: Call 305-456-3830 or email info@diaztradelaw.com.