...
By Hugh Cameron
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
FedEx has said it will pass along a portion of the refunds it is seeking from the government to its customers, following the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Donald Trump’s tariff powers.
On Monday, the courier giant filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of International Trade, requesting that the administration provide a “full refund” for the payments it made under President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs, which the Supreme Court struck down last week.
And in a statement on Thursday, FedEx said that, should it be successful, the company “will issue refunds to the shippers and consumers who originally bore those charges. When that will happen and the exact process for requesting and issuing refunds will depend in part on future guidance from the government and the court.”
Read More on News
“We remain focused on supporting our customers as they adapt to the latest regulatory changes and have taken a procedural step to preserve our right to refunds for IEEPA tariffs on behalf of our customers and FedEx,” the company told Newsweek on Friday.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling that the president overstepped his authorities when imposing global tariffs using emergency powers has complicated the administration’s trade agenda and raised the issue of a multibillion-dollar refund for the importers who originally paid the now-annulled duties.
Estimates suggest around $175 billion in tariff revenue may have unlawfully collected, and hundreds of lawsuits have been filed by companies seeking to reclaim these import tax payments—a process Trump’s former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said will be “chaos.”
What To Know
In a statement to Newsweek earlier this week, FedEx said that its lawsuit, which lists U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as the defendant, was a “procedural step to protect our customers, shareholders, and the company,” and one which hundreds of other companies had already commenced even before the Supreme Court ruling.”
Other companies such as the French beauty giant L’Oreal, U.K. vacuum maker Dyson and contact lens manufacturer Bausch + Lomb have now followed suit, and trade experts and attorneys who spoke with Newsweek say upwards of 1,000 lawsuits were filed last year by firms seeking to protect their right to a refund in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Court records show that government had previously acknowledged its duty to refund, with interest, any tariffs that were later deemed to have been unlawfully collected. Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent noted that the Court provided no guidance on the question of rebates, and said that the matter could play out “for weeks, months, years” in lower courts.
But Bessent, as well as other members of the administration, have said that they will follow the guidance of the U.S. Court of International Trade, to which the matter was remanded, on the issue.
...
“Nobody will get any money back any time soon, but eventually importers who seek refunds should get them, but the burden will be on the importer to take the initiative,” William Reinsch, a senior economist with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told Newsweek.
And while the right of importers to seek redress has been widely recognized, it remains unclear whether consumers will see any benefits from successful rebate litigation.
Earlier this week, a group of Senate Democrats introduced a bill requiring the administration to issue a full refund for the IEEPA duties, with a focus on returning these payments to small businesses.
“Senate Democrats will continue fighting to rein in Donald Trump’s price-hiking trade and economic policies,” said Senator Ron Wyden. “A crucial first step is helping people who need it most, by putting money back in the pockets of small businesses and manufacturers as soon as possible.”
But Reinsch told Newsweek that refunds ever reaching the pockets of consumers was unlikely, as administering these payments would prove “exceptionally difficult.”
Trump’s former Commerce Secretary Ross told Newsweek in an interview that, barring companies themselves distributing some of the rebate windfall through discounts or other means, calculating and channeling the refundable amounts to American consumers—who bore much of the tariff burden—would “take all the AI capability in the whole world.”
What People Are Saying
FedEx told Newsweek: “Our intent is straightforward: if refunds are issued to FedEx, we will issue refunds to the shippers and consumers who originally bore those charges. When that will happen and the exact process for requesting and issuing refunds will depend in part on future guidance from the government and the court.
“We are committed to transparency and will communicate clearly as additional direction becomes available from the U.S. government and the court.”
Adam Hanover, managing director for restructuring and dispute resolution at CohnReznick Advisory LLC, told Newsweek: "To date, over 1,500 complaints have been filed with the federal Court of International Trade seeking refunds, and many more will soon follow. Without providing a specific timeline, it will take a very long time to process these complaints, which is a prerequisite to receiving any refunds. And, if and when a company receives a refund, it is unclear how it would deploy those funds (e.g. such as reducing future prices to benefit customers or simply distributing the funds to its owners)."
Democratic Senator Edward J. Markey said: “Trump’s illegal tariff taxes cost small businesses, consumers, and families up to $175 billion. That money must be repaid immediately. For small businesses with little to no resources, this refund process can be extremely difficult and time consuming.”
“Our bill would require the tariffs to be refunded and level the playing field—putting small importers and small businesses first in the refund process and eliminating needless administrative barriers.”
What Happens Next
In addition to questions and litigation over potential rebates, experts say the new tariff authority on which Trump is relying—Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act—could also be subject to legal scrutiny.
“Section 122 was last used at scale by President Nixon. It would be unsurprising if the use of tariffs aimed at trade imbalances is subject to legal challenges for exceeding the scope of their authority,” said Daniel Anziska, partner at the law firm Troutman Pepper Locke. “However, the fact that Section 122 tariffs will only remain in effect for 150 days (their statutory limit) limits the effect of legal challenges.”
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines