But what about refunds? Yes if DOJ means what they said.

The case brought to the Supreme Court concerns the legality of using IEEPA to deploy tariffs, not the refunds themselves. The Court provided no guidance on refunds, because it wasn’t in their scope. 

However, during the course of the IEEPA litigation, the U.S. Department of Justice clearly stated:

“If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs…”

See docket page 28 in the government’s motion, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Appeal No. 25-1812 (Fed. Cir. filed May 28, 2025), May 29, 2025, ECF No. 6.

所有跟帖: 

老川可以拖着不办,耍惯了赖皮你能如何! -5678910- 给 5678910 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 06:14:17

还需要还利息 -在彼空谷- 给 在彼空谷 发送悄悄话 在彼空谷 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 06:16:40

这个现在只能去法院领了 已经有1800家工资告到法院了 -在彼空谷- 给 在彼空谷 发送悄悄话 在彼空谷 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 06:17:19

给了不就等于认输了吗?大嘴认过输吗?连2020败选至今都说没输。。。 -Penuium- 给 Penuium 发送悄悄话 Penuium 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 06:35:22

美国是按法律程序办事, DOJ 说的不是法律。高院没有裁定是否要退,估计最终又会回到高院。 -QualityWithoutName- 给 QualityWithoutName 发送悄悄话 QualityWithoutName 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 06:50:47

正解。但政府失去了公信。 -akc- 给 akc 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 06:58:56

不是贸易法庭吗? -孤独的异乡人- 给 孤独的异乡人 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 08:02:20

退关税跟DOJ没有直接关系, 除非偷税漏税 -bustout- 给 bustout 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 07:50:12

请您先登陆,再发跟帖!