The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a mandate that moves multiple lawsuits on U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs forward on the path toward refunds.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in late February that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify his tariff program was illegal. The ruling largely agreed with earlier rulings by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and determined that the IEEPA did not give Trump the authority to impose the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he implemented in April 2025.
While the ruling forced Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to no longer collect duties related to the tariffs, it did not mention any refund process for the tens of thousands of businesses who were now owed money by the federal government. Trade lawyers told SeafoodSource the process could take months to wind its way through the court system, with some businesses facing the prospect of not receiving any refund for at least a year.
Now, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a first step toward the refund process. On 2 March, the court issued its mandate, sending the case that the Supreme Court ruled on back to the CIT.
Vinicius Adam, an attorney with VAdam Law in Fort Lauderdale, Florida – who filed a complaint against the tariffs on behalf of Netuno in November 2025 – told SeafoodSource that the procedural step “matters more than it may sound.”
“The mandate lifts the prior stay and allows the CIT to move forward. Hundreds of related cases had been paused pending a final resolution in the lead case,” Adam said. “With jurisdiction now fully returned to the trial court, those matters can begin advancing again.”
That mandate was issued despite attempts by the federal government to delay it. The appellants who originally brought the case before the Supreme Court had moved for an immediate issuance of the mandate, which typically can take as much as 25 days for the decision to be final.
“The immediate issuance of the mandate is not only consistent with the terms of this Court’s stay; it will also facilitate the prompt and equitable disposition of both this case and the over 900 other suits challenging the tariffs that are currently pending before the CIT,” the appellants motion states.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an opposing motion, calling for a 90-day stay of the mandate.
“If anything, the Court should withhold issuance of the mandate for 90 days to allow the political branches an opportunity to consider options,” the DOJ’s filing states. “Complexity in the future counsels appropriately careful process, not breakneck speed. The Court should deny the motion and, if anything, withhold the issuance of the mandate for 90 days after the Supreme Court sends down its judgment to this Court.”
The court ultimately disagreed with the federal government and began the process to hear the hundreds of lawsuits related to the tariffs – which includes a number of seafood companies.
Now, the CIT will decide how those lawsuits will move forward. Adam said the CIT will likely issue more administrative orders. The outcome of the process, according to Adam, is “difficult to predict.”
“However, it is doubtful cases will be handled individually as a matter of course; it is equally doubtful that litigants cannot petition the CIT arguing that the facts and the law require the court to hear motions or manage the case apart from the others,” he said.
Regardless of how that next step is decided, by issuing the mandate, the courts have taken the next step post-Supreme Court ruling.
“This is a great first step,” Adam said. “It's a little move in the direction toward refunds.”
