The Trump administration has refunded approximately $100 billion in tariffs following the US Supreme Court's February ruling that struck down broad duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). According to Reuters, about 60% of the $166 billion collected under the tariffs had been refunded by July 31, with the refunds including interest paid to importers who originally paid the duties. A US Customs and Border Protection official confirmed that around $128.68 billion in potential and certified refunds had been accepted for processing as of July 31, with about $100 billion completed and sent to the Treasury Department for disbursement. The Supreme Court ruling forced the administration to return duties collected under the measure after determining the law did not give the president unilateral authority to impose such tariffs.
A coalition of 25 Democratic-ruled states has moved the US Court of International Trade against President Donald Trump's decision to impose tariffs on 60 countries and the European Union, citing the administration's attempt to replace import taxes the Supreme Court struck down in February. According to reports from Associated Press, the states filed the lawsuit on Monday, contending that the tariffs will raise costs for consumers and businesses nationwide. New York Attorney General Letitia James, Governor Kathy Hochul and the coalition are asking the Court of International Trade to declare these tariffs illegal and compel the federal government to refund duties already paid by importers. The lawsuit seeks to block enforcement of tariffs and have them declared unlawful, with James stating that "after losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs."
The US imposed a fresh round of tariffs ranging between 10% and 12.5% on these 60 countries and the European Union, citing failure on the issue of forced labour. As reported by The Economic Times, these tariffs replaced the 10% global levies that expired on July 24. India, along with 16 other countries, faces a 10% tariff rate, with the reprieve following India's amendment of its foreign trade policy on June 14 to ban imports of goods made with forced labour. The new tariffs took effect just as the clock ran out on Trump's previous temporary 10% worldwide tariffs, which had expired at midnight July 24. Trump, who argues that high tariffs will revive American manufacturing, last year overturned decades of U.S. policy that favored lower tariffs and ever-freer trade.
The lawsuit argues that the administration has violated the law by failing to follow section 301 requirements for imposing tariffs and implementing new tariffs without any clear connection to their stated goal of combatting forced-labour practices. According to The Economic Times, the complaint says the administration is using a forced labour investigation as a pretext to continue sweeping import duties, noting that "the USTR timed and structured its investigation and the Tariff Action to replace the expiring Section 122 tariffs without interruption." The states' challenge stems from the fact that these are the third time the administration has tried to impose similar worldwide tariffs under different statutes, with their "nearly copy-pasted" nature potentially posing court challenges. The Supreme Court previously ruled that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize tariffs, forcing the administration to send refunds to importers who'd paid the previous tariffs. The lawsuit alleges there is no rational link between the stated objective of combating forced labour and the blanket tariffs imposed on almost all imports from 60 trading partners.
While the administration claims to be using section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to combat forced labour in global trade, the lawsuit argues this is a pretext for imposing the same sweeping tariffs the administration has repeatedly tried and failed to enact. As reported by The Economic Times, White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the administration's position, stating that "the United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce" and that "A foreign country's failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens U.S. commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed." The administration invoked Section 301 to impose the forced-labour tariffs, which range 10% to 12.5% and hit countries that provide 99% of American imports. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the tariffs were intended to address both a human rights issue and a trade practice that disadvantaged American workers, noting that "President Trump recognises that decades of moral suasion have not eradicated forced labour from global supply chains." The states' lawsuit follows small business lawsuits filed in July that also challenged the 301 tariffs, with both cases arguing that the government didn't adequately establish its case against each specific economy or spell how the tariffs will eliminate the specified practice.
The Supreme Court's February ruling has set a significant legal precedent for future tariff challenges, with the administration now refunding $100 billion in tariffs following the court's decision. According to The Economic Times, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield cited an analysis by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, saying nearly 90% of tariff costs in 2025 had been borne by American consumers and businesses. Rayfield stated that "despite losing every step of the way, Trump is trying yet again to inflict more chaos on working families and homegrown Oregon businesses." The lawsuit also accuses the US of bypassing country-specific consultations and failing to explain why duties on countries with such varied forced-labour measures were set in a "nearly uniform manner." Law professor Barry Appleton noted that while previous statutes used by the administration were novelties and hadn't been used before for similar purposes, Section 301 has been used before during Trump's first term, which survived legal challenges. The current legal challenge represents the administration's third attempt at rebuilding its global tariff regime after previous Supreme Court defeats.
