Court SLAMS Trump’s Stalling Tactics

A wooden gavel in front of a balance scale symbolizing justice — HUGE COURT DECISION

A federal appeals court just delivered a stinging rebuke to efforts that would have delayed refunds for American businesses unfairly hit by tariffs the Supreme Court already ruled unconstitutional—prioritizing hardworking importers over bureaucratic stalling tactics.

Story Snapshot

Federal Circuit denies Trump administration’s 90-day delay request, clearing immediate path for tariff refund processing at U.S. Court of International Trade
Supreme Court ruled February 20, 2026, that IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariffs, invalidating billions in duties collected since 2025
Over 1,000 businesses including FedEx, Revlon, and Costco await refunds while new 10% tariffs under different legal authority take effect
Courts affirm statutory limits on executive power, forcing administration pivot to Section 122 authority for ongoing trade enforcement

Appeals Court Clears Path for Business Refunds

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the Trump administration’s request for a 90-day delay on March 2, 2026, immediately clearing the way for the U.S. Court of International Trade to begin processing tariff refunds.

The administration had sought additional time to evaluate options following the Supreme Court’s February 20 ruling that invalidated tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Neal Katyal stated his team would proceed immediately to secure refunds for Americans owed money, while the administration warned the process could take years to complete fully.

BREAKING: An appeals court rejects the Trump administration's bid to delay refunding tariffs after the Supreme Court's ruling. https://t.co/JWSWdFavuZ

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 2, 2026

Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariff Authority

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on February 20, 2026, that IEEPA does not grant presidents authority to impose tariffs, affirming lower court decisions in cases brought by five small businesses and twelve states. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion emphasizing that IEEPA, designed for emergencies since 1977, lacks the explicit tariff-setting provisions found in other trade statutes.

The ruling came after President Trump had escalated tariffs starting in March 2025 from 10% on Chinese goods to as high as 145% effective rates on select products, citing emergencies like drug trafficking. This decision establishes clear statutory boundaries on executive power in trade policy, preventing future presidents from circumventing congressional authority through emergency declarations.

Administration Pivots to Alternative Tariff Mechanisms

President Trump terminated the IEEPA tariffs via executive order on February 24, 2026, just four days after the Supreme Court ruling, simultaneously imposing new 10% tariffs under Section 122 and other alternative legal authorities.

The new tariffs apply to nearly all trading partners for 150 days, with civil aircraft and parts exempted, while Trump has signaled potential increases to 15% though not yet implemented.

This rapid pivot demonstrates the administration’s commitment to maintaining trade enforcement despite judicial constraints on emergency powers. Legal experts note the new tariffs under Section 122 remain legally distinct from the invalidated IEEPA levies, though businesses face sustained import costs during the transition period.

Refund Process Faces Complex Implementation Challenges

The Court of International Trade now oversees refund mechanics for potentially billions of dollars in duties collected under the invalidated IEEPA tariffs, though the Supreme Court provided no guidance on implementation procedures. Over 1,000 lawsuits have been filed by major corporations and small businesses seeking recovery of paid duties plus interest, with additional claims emerging from non-importer entities pursuing contractual remedies.

Trade law firms advise businesses to review transactions from March 2025 onward to identify eligible refund claims, noting the process lacks clear timelines despite the Federal Circuit’s rejection of delays. While this represents a victory for businesses challenging government overreach, the refund timeline remains uncertain as courts develop processing frameworks without precedent for IEEPA-related tariff reversals.

Constitutional Limits on Emergency Trade Powers Affirmed

This case underscores fundamental concerns about executive overreach that conservatives champion—the judiciary checking unbounded assertions of emergency authority that bypass Congress. The Supreme Court correctly distinguished IEEPA from statutes explicitly granting tariff powers with caps and durations, reinforcing that emergency declarations cannot become backdoors for routine policymaking.

Justice Kagan’s concurrence noted the ruling avoided invoking the major questions doctrine, suggesting courts may scrutinize future emergency trade actions even under alternative authorities.

While the administration legitimately seeks tools to protect American workers and address unfair trade practices, this decision affirms that constitutional limits matter, preserving the separation of powers our founders designed to prevent government overreach regardless of which party holds office.