Federal judge signals class-action expansion for Trump tariff refunds as tens of thousands of importers still wait

A Clinton-appointed federal judge appeared ready to certify a class action that would force the government to refund all remaining IEEPA tariff payments, a move that could bypass the administration's own refund portal and sweep in tens of thousands of importers who never filed suit.

Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade heard oral arguments Thursday from Department of Justice lawyers and a coalition of businesses led by wine importer V.O.S. Selections. The coalition wants class-action certification so the court can issue a single order requiring the government to reliquidate every tariff entry collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Eaton did not rule from the bench, but his questions and comments throughout the hearing left little doubt about where he is leaning, the Washington Examiner reported.

The dispute traces back to the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in February that struck down President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, which he unveiled in April 2025. The high court held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, rendering roughly $166 billion in collected duties unlawful. The administration moved quickly after the ruling, creating the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries program, known as CAPE, and launching an online portal for importers to claim refunds.

$100 billion processed, but billions more remain in limbo

The administration told a federal court earlier this week that it had processed approximately $100 billion in refunds, roughly 60 percent of the $166 billion total. Eaton opened Thursday's hearing by commending the administration's speed in standing up the CAPE program. That is not a small concession from a judge appointed by Bill Clinton.

But Eaton's praise stopped at the portal's design. His concern centered on the importers still left out. He described himself as "stunned" when DOJ lawyers suggested the court could simply waive its filing fee and create a template complaint for individual IEEPA tariff claims, rather than certify a class. In Eaton's view, tens of thousands of importers could still be denied refunds they are owed if each one has to file a separate lawsuit.

The judge has made his frustration with DOJ's legal posture clear in prior proceedings as well. At an earlier hearing covered by AP News, Eaton questioned a Customs and Border Protection official about the pace and scope of refunds and pushed back on the Justice Department's appeal seeking to limit who qualifies.

At that hearing, Eaton offered a pointed assessment of DOJ's strategy:

"Sometimes lawyers push legal positions beyond what is useful for the client. The legal position pushed by the government may not be in the government's best interest."

He followed up with an even more direct instruction: "Let the Customs and Border Patrol be the Customs and Border Patrol. Let them do their job, let them do what I believe the government actually wants to do."

That framing matters. Eaton appears to believe the administration's own refund apparatus is working, and that DOJ's legal maneuvering is the obstacle, not the White House's intent. Whether that reading is accurate or generous, it sets up a collision between the court and the Justice Department's appellate strategy.

Coalition argues one order beats thousands of lawsuits

Colleen Sinzdak, the lawyer representing the business coalition, pressed the efficiency argument hard. She told the court that class certification would replace thousands of individual suits with a single injunction.

"Rather than doing that, the court can certify a class and issue a single class-wide injunction that just says you need to reliquidate the entries with IEEPA tariffs across the board."

Sinzdak added that her team was "not aware of any law that prevents a reliquidation order from being on a class-wide basis," and argued it would serve the core purposes of class actions: judicial efficiency and fairness. She painted a picture of the alternative, "loads and loads and loads of different suits and this whole detailed process with envelopes floating back and forth", as a bureaucratic mess that would punish small importers who lack the resources to hire lawyers and navigate federal trade court.

The DOJ countered that the class-action request came too late and offered its alternatives: waive the filing fee and provide a template complaint. Eaton was not persuaded. He said he appreciated DOJ's suggestions but gave no indication he viewed them as adequate substitutes for class certification.

The case is one of several federal court proceedings testing the boundaries of judicial authority over Trump administration policy. And it arrives at a moment when the administration is simultaneously defending its tariff framework on multiple legal fronts.

Trump rebuilds tariff structure under different statutes

The Supreme Court's February ruling did not end the tariff fight, it shifted the legal terrain. Hours after the decision, Trump imposed a new 10 percent global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and began rebuilding his broader tariff framework using Section 301, Just The News reported. Trump called the ruling "a travesty," posting that "handing over 159 billion dollars in tariff refunds to people who have been ripping off our Country for years is unexplainable."

Phillip Magness, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, told Just The News that "Trump's attempts to shoehorn his tariffs under different sections of trade law are unprecedented in the modern era." Whether those alternative authorities survive their own legal challenges remains an open question. A federal appeals court recently sided with the administration, ruling the 10 percent global tariff likely legal, a significant win that suggests at least some of the rebuilt framework will hold.

That legal landscape is part of what makes the class-action question before Judge Eaton more than a procedural footnote. If the court certifies a class, every importer who paid IEEPA tariffs would be swept into a single refund order, no individual filing, no fee, no template complaint. The remaining $66 billion in unlawful duties would move toward reliquidation under a court mandate rather than through the administration's voluntary portal.

The refund process has also exposed a gap that no court order is likely to close. As Just The News noted, consumers who paid higher prices on imported goods because of the tariffs are unlikely to see any money returned. The refunds flow to importers, the businesses that paid the duties at the border, not to the end customers who absorbed the cost downstream. CBP launched Phase 1 of its refund portal on April 20, with the first disbursements expected around May 11, but that timeline applies only to importers who filed through the system.

The broader pattern of federal judges inserting themselves into Trump administration decisions has drawn scrutiny from conservatives who see an activist judiciary overstepping its role. Some rulings that initially blocked administration actions have later fallen apart on appeal, raising questions about whether lower courts are substituting their policy preferences for legal analysis. Other judges have waded into disputes over naming rights and executive actions far afield from traditional judicial territory.

No ruling yet, but the direction is clear

Eaton gave no timeline for his decision on class certification. The hearing ended Thursday without a ruling. But his skepticism toward DOJ's alternatives and his repeated concern for importers who have not yet received refunds point in one direction.

The administration deserves credit for processing $100 billion in refunds in roughly six months, a pace Eaton himself acknowledged. The CAPE program and the online portal represent a serious logistical effort. DOJ's argument that the class-action request came too late is not frivolous; courts regularly deny certification on procedural grounds.

But the administration's legal team faces a judge who appears to view its own appellate strategy as the biggest barrier to finishing the job. Eaton's comments suggest he sees class certification not as judicial overreach but as the fastest path to an outcome the government itself claims to want: getting every importer the refund the Supreme Court says they are owed.

Whether that reasoning survives appeal is another matter. The Justice Department has already challenged the scope of the refund order, arguing that only companies that filed lawsuits are entitled to refunds. That position, if upheld, would leave tens of thousands of small businesses, the ones without lawyers and without the resources to navigate federal trade court, holding the bill for tariffs the Supreme Court called unlawful.

When the government collects money it had no legal authority to take, returning it should not require a law degree and a filing fee.