Amid the tax refund surge, Trump administration: Application to postpone the start of the refund process by about 4 months

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump's tariff policy was illegal, an unprecedented tax refund contest is underway. On one hand, the Trump administration has admitted that the refund process will most likely begin; on the other hand, it has simultaneously requested to delay the process by about four months in an attempt to buy time to respond to the policy fallout.

According to a February 27 report by China Central Television News, in the days following the Supreme Court's decision, more than 100 new lawsuits have been filed by companies demanding the return of tariffs already paid to the government, bringing the total number of related lawsuits to over 2,000.

Many publicly listed companies and well-known brands have joined the fray. Industry insiders believe that the participation of large enterprises such as FedEx and Costco has, to some extent, eased other companies' concerns about potential retaliation from the White House.

Meanwhile, on February 27, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requested the court to temporarily halt the refund process for about four months. The DOJ emphasized that the Supreme Court did not provide detailed guidance on subsequent procedures, and the complexity of the process requires "cautious advancement rather than rushing to a conclusion."

The DOJ Requests a Two-Stage Delay, Totaling About Four Months

According to the DOJ's request, the delay will be implemented in two steps: first, by waiting for the Supreme Court's decision to take formal effect, a process that typically takes 32 days; then, by adding another 90-day buffer period to "give political departments an opportunity to consider all options." In total, the start of the refund process will be postponed by about four months.

The DOJ also criticized some companies for trying to quickly resume refund litigation in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), arguing that their lawyers' desire to accelerate the schedule is "clearly motivated by a wish to be the center of attention in the process."

The DOJ wrote in its filing: "The complexity of future proceedings requires a properly cautious process, not a reckless rush forward."

The DOJ also cited the large-scale port maintenance tax refund case of 1998 as a precedent—in that case, U.S. importers won a $730 million tax refund judgment in the CIT, but it took the government years to finally complete all payments. The DOJ emphasized that the amount involved in the Trump tariff case far exceeds the above case and is much harder to handle.

Democrats Introduce Legislation Requiring Refunds Within 180 Days, With Interest

After the Supreme Court ruling, Senate Democrats quickly introduced a legislative proposal to promote the implementation of refunds through institutional means.

The bill, led by Senators Ron Wyden, Edward Markey, and Jeanne Shaheen and co-signed by 22 Senate Democrats, requires the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to complete refunds within 180 days and pay interest on the refund amounts.

According to data cited by the senators, tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act have brought in about $175 billion in revenue for the U.S. Treasury.

Wyden stated: "Trump's illegal tax scheme has caused enduring harm to American families, small businesses, and manufacturers. Helping those who need it most to get their money back quickly is a crucial first step."

Trump Opposes Ruling; Supreme Court Dissent Warns of Fiscal Impact

Regarding the Supreme Court decision, Trump posted a strongly worded message on Truth Social earlier on February 27. He wrote: "Those countries and companies that have taken advantage of the United States for decades can now, thanks to this extremely disappointing ruling, receive an unprecedented 'windfall.' It makes no sense. Is there a possibility for a rehearing or a new decision in this case?"

Although Trump said he would explore options to seek a rehearing, the DOJ did not explicitly state in its February 27 filing that it plans to petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing.

On the potential fiscal impact of the refunds, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed this in his dissenting opinion.

He wrote: "Refunding billions of dollars will have a significant impact on U.S. finances," noting that the Court "said nothing" about how the government should return the money collected from importers, and admitted that the process "is very likely to be a chaotic mess."