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: 

老川可以拖著不辦,耍慣了賴皮你能如何! -5678910- 給 5678910 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 06:14:17

還需要還利息 -在彼空穀- 給 在彼空穀 發送悄悄話 在彼空穀 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 06:16:40

這個現在隻能去法院領了 已經有1800家工資告到法院了 -在彼空穀- 給 在彼空穀 發送悄悄話 在彼空穀 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 06:17:19

給了不就等於認輸了嗎?大嘴認過輸嗎?連2020敗選至今都說沒輸。。。 -Penuium- 給 Penuium 發送悄悄話 Penuium 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 06:35:22

美國是按法律程序辦事, DOJ 說的不是法律。高院沒有裁定是否要退,估計最終又會回到高院。 -QualityWithoutName- 給 QualityWithoutName 發送悄悄話 QualityWithoutName 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 06:50:47

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

不是貿易法庭嗎? -孤獨的異鄉人- 給 孤獨的異鄉人 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 08:02:20

退關稅跟DOJ沒有直接關係, 除非偷稅漏稅 -bustout- 給 bustout 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 02/21/2026 postreply 07:50:12

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!