166 billion USD. That is the amount that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) estimates it collected from importing businesses before the Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump's broad tariff policy was unconstitutional.1 The figure is not imaginary — it sits in the accounts of the Treasury Department. But the path for that money to return to those who paid it is becoming a multi-layered legal battle, with three branches of federal government both cooperating and clashing in a process with no clear historical precedent.
According to wdsu.com, this story is not merely a simple administrative procedure. It is a real-world test of whether the American judicial system has the power to force the executive branch to comply with an unfavorable ruling — and in that context, thousands of importing businesses, including not a few companies run by Vietnamese Americans, are sitting and watching to see whether they will actually receive the money.
From Supreme Court ruling to application portal: A longer road than expected
After the Supreme Court invalidated the "reciprocal tariffs" that the Trump administration imposed on goods from most countries, Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade issued an order to CBP in March 2026 to build a system allowing "all importers of record" to apply for tariff refunds.1 The order was comprehensive — making no distinction between large or small businesses, with no sectoral limitations.
CBP launched an online system called the CAPE portal on April 20, 2026, with initial priority on processing applications from importers who did not have officially settled tax invoices.1 As of June 1, 2026, according to CBP data, refund applications totaling 89.6 billion USD had been accepted for processing, and the agency reported that it had directed the Treasury Department to issue 20.6 billion USD in refunds.1 The scale of deployment was massive — according to a trade lawyer cited by wdsu.com, many companies submitted thousands of applications simultaneously, with projected refund timelines of 60 to 90 days after approval.1
But this is where the story starts getting complicated.
Disputed boundaries: Who is permitted to enter the CAPE portal?
The Department of Justice appealed Judge Eaton's "universal" order, arguing in court filings that only companies that were plaintiffs in over 2,500 lawsuits challenging the legality of the new tariff levels have the legal right to request refunds.1 In other words, according to the Justice Department's view: if you did not sue, you do not get reimbursed.
This argument has a certain legal logic — in the American judicial system, rulings typically only bind the parties to the lawsuit. But in a case where the policy affects the entire import economy, that view amounts to saying that tens of thousands of businesses that paid illegal tariffs would not receive refunds, simply because they lacked the resources or information to sue.
CBP also self-imposed limitations on scope: to date, the agency has only opened the CAPE portal to businesses with unsettled tax invoices, or entities with invoices paid within 80 days before the Supreme Court issued its ruling at the end of February 2026.1 Companies that paid tariffs earlier — meaning the units that suffered the longest — still do not have access to phase two of the refund process.
This is the critical point that Tuesday's hearing focused on: Is CBP prepared and able to expand the process to include older tariff payments?12
Confrontation between judiciary and executive — rare but not unprecedented
This week's hearing carries notable institutional drama. Judge Eaton initially required CBP Director Rodney Scott himself to testify directly to explain the agency's compliance roadmap.1 This is an unusual request — it is rare for a federal judge to require the head of a high-level executive agency to appear directly in court.
The Department of Justice objected and proposed that a deputy director substitute instead. When Judge Eaton maintained his requirement, the Department of Justice appealed both that requirement and the broader ruling on refund scope to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.1 On Thursday, the appeals court agreed to temporarily suspend the requirement for Mr. Scott to testify.1 Instead, Susan Thomas, CBP's Deputy Executive Commissioner responsible for trade, will appear in court.1
That the Department of Justice immediately appealed and the appeals court suspended the lower court's order shows the administration has no intention of passive compliance. With the case now before the Federal Appeals Court, according to wdsu.com and ABC News, Tuesday's hearing may provide more information about the next phase — but the final ruling on refund scope still lies ahead.12
The ultimate consumer: Do not expect money to reach your hands
While large companies and trade lawyers compete for slots into the CAPE portal, a more practical question is being asked of ordinary consumers: will they see any of this refund money?
The short answer, according to experts cited by wdsu.com, is almost certainly not.1 The problem lies in how tariffs are accounted for in the supply chain. Most of these tariffs have been "baked into" product prices by importers and retailers from the start — meaning consumers already paid it in the purchase price, but there is no invoice with a separate line item labeled "tariff surcharge."1 To qualify for an individual refund, you need specific documentation explicitly listing that tariff — something almost nobody has.
However, there are some positive signals from retailers and logistics companies. According to wdsu.com, some major retailers like Costco have said they will find ways to pass the benefit of tariff refunds back to customers through lower prices or better value — as a gesture of goodwill.1 Shipping companies like FedEx have also announced they will begin processing refunds for their customers.1 These are voluntary commitments, not legally binding — but they reflect the real pressure that businesses face after a long period of losing customer trust due to rising prices.
Perspective from the Vietnamese American business community
For the Vietnamese American community, this tariff refund story is not just economic news — it touches the daily business reality of tens of thousands of households.
Many small businesses within the Vietnamese American community in areas like Little Saigon in Orange County, the Houston area, and Louisiana communities operate in sectors directly affected by tariffs: food imports, nail salon supplies, household goods, electronic components. Many nail salon owners — an industry where Vietnamese Americans are heavily represented — depend on imported materials from tariffed countries. Yet these are small businesses, usually without trade lawyers and not among the 2,500 lawsuits that the Justice Department considers sufficient grounds for a refund.
In other words, if the Justice Department's position prevails at the Federal Appeals Court, then these small businesses — lacking the resources to hire lawyers and sue — will come away empty-handed in the distribution of this 166 billion USD. This is not random. This is a foreseeable consequence of a legal rule favoring those who sued — and in practical terms, favoring those who had enough money to sue in the first place.
What will the appeals court decide — and why it matters more than this week's hearing
Tuesday's hearing with CBP's Susan Thomas may provide more data on the agency's technical roadmap — but the real legal battle has moved to the Federal Appeals Court.12 The central question the court must resolve is: whether a "universal" court order — that is, an order applying to everyone rather than just the parties to the lawsuit — is constitutional and legal in this context.
This is a legal question with significance far beyond this tariff refund case. For years, conservative judges and some progressive judges have debated the legal limits of universal injunctions. If the appeals court narrows the scope of Judge Eaton's order, it will be an important precedent not just for this case but for all federal policy lawsuits in the future.
Most likely, in the view of Saigon Sentinel, the appeals court will preserve the refund right for those who sued — but narrow or condition the "universal" scope of the original order. That means: large corporations that sued from the beginning get money; small businesses that did not sue continue waiting — and likely will wait indefinitely.
If that scenario unfolds, Congress might have to step in with legislation to create a more comprehensive refund mechanism. But given the current political climate in Washington, that likelihood is not high in the short term.
89.6 billion USD accepted for processing — but the path back to payers remains difficult
Looking back, this tariff refund story exposes a familiar paradox in the American legal system: those who have the resources to protect their rights — through lawyers, through litigation — stand first in line. Those without such resources stand behind, if not outside altogether.
According to wdsu.com, as of early June 2026, 20.6 billion USD had been directed by CBP to the Treasury Department for issuance — out of a total of 89.6 billion USD in accepted applications, and 166 billion USD as the estimated total collected.1 The gap between these three numbers — 20.6 billion, 89.6 billion, and 166 billion — is the space where the legal battle is being waged.
For ordinary consumers and small business owners, the most practical advice at this moment is: watch whether your retailers and shipping partners make specific refund commitments, and keep any invoices clearly showing tariff charges if you have them. Beyond that, wait for the Federal Appeals Court ruling — that is the real decision point of this process.
Read the full original wdsu.com reporting at the source link below.