文学城论坛
+A-

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

akc 2026-02-21 06:04:33 ( reads)

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.

跟帖(8)

5678910

2026-02-21 06:14:17

老川可以拖着不办,耍惯了赖皮你能如何!

在彼空谷

2026-02-21 06:16:40

还需要还利息

在彼空谷

2026-02-21 06:17:19

这个现在只能去法院领了 已经有1800家工资告到法院了

Penuium

2026-02-21 06:35:22

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。。。

QualityWithoutName

2026-02-21 06:50:47

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。

akc

2026-02-21 06:58:56

正解。但政府失去了公信。

孤独的异乡人

2026-02-21 08:02:20

不是贸易法庭吗?

bustout

2026-02-21 07:50:12

退关税跟DOJ没有直接关系, 除非偷税漏税