I suspect that privilege or classification will be invoked.
On the other hand, if the evidence is flimsy, the rushed nature of this evidence gathering, together with the history of imposing and reimposing tariffs, will be used to support the argument that these “investigations” are just a pretext.
isn’t the issue how long it will take to overturn these decisions ?
Pretty much. We’ll be into the next administration which will just eliminate them anyway.
I would hope so but I’m not sure. didn’t Biden keep the Trump China tariffs from his first administration ? It’s hard for these pols to get rid if the revenue. Plus the unions are pro tariff I believe.
1 Like
China is a whole different kettle of fish than the EU, Mexico, and Canada. I would not use it as a proxy for overall tariff stance.
1 Like
I think an important factor will be whether the higher courts stay enforcement of rulings in the Court of International Trade invalidating tariffs while appeals are underway. They issued a stay for the IEEPA tariffs based on government’s arguments about relative harms since tariffs can just be refunded. That’s proven to be more complicated than it was represented and has caused ongoing and, in some cases, irreparable harms to importers (especially small ones). I’m not sure the government will get a stay quite as easily the next time around. The response to the government’s request for a stay for the Section 122 tariffs is due this week (Thursday) and government’s reply due three days later. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a temporary administrative stay while this question is decided.
-Al
1 Like
According to the latest declaration in the IEEPA tariffs case, $20.6B refunds are on the way to importers. There continue to be some data entry issues with some of the refund requests that have been filed.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17610/gov.uscourts.cit.17610.30.0.pdf
-Al
Of course, the USG claimed to a court two weeks ago that it would be $35B. Whoops. https://seekingalpha.com/news/4597229-us-customs-processing-206b-in-importer-tariff-refunds-report
Two weeks ago, a US trade official said that more than $35.5B in refund claims were being processed. Yet that number “was overstated by approximately $10B,” according to Brandon Lord, executive director of trade programs for CBP’s Office of Trade. The actual amount was closer to $25B, the report said.“This was not a reflection of any error in CAPE processing or refunds, but rather was the result of an inadvertent error in the data query used to calculate the figure,” said Lord,
In terms of court review, can USTR claim privilege over the factual basis for the tariffs? I could see a possible claim that the harms are classified, and thus limited to who can see it, but I also suspect that classification would apply to a pretty narrow range of products . . . a court would laugh at claim of national security means the government can’t share the reason for tariffs on wine.
I am not making any assessment of what can be done, merely what will be done whether it is allowed or not.
1 Like
The Seeking Alpha piece is based on a footnote on page 3 of the declaration I linked. Also, I think the $35.5B that should have been $25B at that time was the total of potential refunds that were being processed, only some of which had been completed. That should be compared to $85B cited in the current declaration.
-Al
2 Likes
Well, FAFO.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/27/us/politics/trade-court-customs-chief-tariff-refunds.html
A federal trade court has ordered Rodney S. Scott, the head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to appear at a hearing next month on the Trump administration’s handling of roughly $166 billion in tariff refunds.
The refunds that are being processed through the CBP CAPE modifications only cover tariffs charged on imports that are still being processed, but not tariffs collected from imports that have been finalized.
In the original VOS Selections case, Judge Richard K Eaton recently lifted his stay (while the Atmus and Euro-Notions cases proceeded) and briefing on refunds for tariffs that can’t be remedied by the CAPE modified process and ordered Rodney Scott, Commissioner of CBP, to appear in a show cause hearing outlining how they will comply with order to refund all collected IEEPA tariffs.
The government requested Judge Eaton modify his order to not require Commissioner Scott to attend the hearing (basically, separation of powers arguments). They also stated that they have no authority to refund tariffs already collected without a court order, that the Casa ruling on universal injunctions prevents the Court from ordering that relief for importers who have not individually sued, and that they will appeal any attempt to compel these refunds.
This is just a delay and hope they go away tactic. The tariffs were unlawful, they want each individual importer to have to sue expecting that many will not.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17080/gov.uscourts.cit.17080.88.0.pdf
I think this may implicate a bit less than half the tariffs, minus the tariffs from importers who have already sued (haven’t seen a good estimate).
-Al
This argument strikes me as perverse.
CASA was about a preliminary injunction issued by a district court that applied nationwide. In this case, the Supreme Court held the tariffs unlawful as a permanent matter. The idea that even after a Supreme Court ruling on the final merits still requires every affected person to keep bringing suits to enforce the ruling with respect to them surely is not what the Court intended.
Looks like the 301 tariffs based on the “investigations” are starting to be announced. 10% EU due to the EU’s failure to prevent use of forced labor, as revealed by the “investigation.” Amazing how the investigation found the same issue at virtually all our large trading partners. Must be bad out there.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/03/business/trump-tariffs-force-labor.html
2 Likes
Like I was saying…farcical.
3 Likes
The 301 tariffs are 12.5% for a number of countries, and I think Brazil was hit with 25% yesterday. The 60 countries affected represent virtually all US imports.
[corrected typo]
-Al
10% for EU
I’m genuinely curious whether the US is better about policing goods made with forced labor than many of these other countries, which is the basis for this (EU imports more forced-labor made goods than US, so its exports are cheaper).
I am happy to have a detailed discussion of this but not in this forum. It gets swiftly politicized.