The Trump administration told a federal trade court it cannot immediately begin refunding $166 billion in tariffs the Supreme Court struck down, and it needs at least 45 days just to build a system capable of starting.
That blunt message landed Friday morning in an affidavit from Brandon Lord, executive director of Customs and Border Protection's Trade Programs Directorate. The filing lays bare the staggering scale of the refund task and the bureaucratic reality that courts rarely consider when they issue sweeping orders.
Here's the core problem: the Court of International Trade directed the administration on Wednesday to start issuing refunds for tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 20 that President Trump lacked authority under that statute to impose the tariffs. But ruling something unlawful and unwinding it are two very different things.
Lord's affidavit, reported by the Daily Caller, spells out the logistical nightmare in hard figures:
Lord told the court plainly:
"CBP has never been ordered to, nor has it attempted to, process a volume of refunds anywhere near the volume of total entries and Entry Summary lines on which IEEPA duties have been deposited."
That is not defiance. That is arithmetic.
The affidavit draws a revealing comparison. When CBP's predecessor, the U.S. Customs Service, was ordered to refund the Harbor Maintenance Fee after the Supreme Court struck it down in 1998, the process "took several years to complete and required an updated regulatory procedure." And that involved far fewer entries than the 53 million at issue now.
CBP said it is "confident" it can develop a new system to streamline refunds on an importer basis rather than issuing 53 million separate entry-specific payments. The agency hopes to have it ready within 45 days.
"The process will be simpler and more efficient than the existing functionalities, and CBP will provide guidance on how to file to refund declarations in the new system."
Fox News reported that the administration told the trade court it needs about six weeks to build the refund infrastructure. Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned in dissent that the refund process is likely to be a "mess." That prediction looks prophetic.
Judge Richard Eaton of the Court of International Trade has shown little patience for delay. As Breitbart reported, Eaton said during a hearing: "Customs knows how to do this." He ruled that "all importers of record" were "entitled to benefit" from the Supreme Court's decision.
Newsmax noted that Eaton also ordered Customs to stop collecting the invalidated tariffs and to recalculate goods already in the liquidation process without them. Total refunds could reach $175 billion.
Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner detailed how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied the administration's request for a 90-day pause and sent the refund lawsuits back to the trade court. Every legal off-ramp has been closed.
A group of Democratic state attorneys general sued the administration Thursday over Trump's new tariffs, claiming he was trying to "sidestep" the Supreme Court. That framing ignores a basic fact: the president invoked a different statute entirely, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, to impose a 10% global tariff shortly after the ruling and raised it to 15% the next day.
Using a different legal authority after one is struck down is not "sidestepping." It is governing within the system. Congress wrote multiple tariff statutes. The president used one.
The Financial Times reported Friday that some companies that attempted to reclaim duties have already been denied refunds. That adds urgency, and frustration, for importers caught in the middle.
Courts love issuing grand orders. They rarely think about who has to execute them, or how. A judge can write "begin refunding" in an afternoon. Building a system to process 53 million entries across 330,000 importers, without pulling border agents off national security duties, takes real time and real resources.
Lord's affidavit made the stakes clear. Processing refunds at this scale would redirect personnel away from "responsibilities that serve to mitigate imminent threats to national security and economic security." That is not a talking point. It is a trade-off that judges should weigh before demanding instant compliance.
None of this means importers shouldn't get their money back. If the tariffs lacked legal authority, refunds are owed. But demanding that a federal agency conjure a $166 billion refund apparatus overnight, while keeping the border secure, is not justice. It is a fantasy dressed up in a court order.
Accountability runs both ways. If courts want their orders followed, they should start writing ones that can actually be carried out.
