A legal dispute over the status of tariffs imposed during Donald Trump’s presidency has entered a new phase, as the administration moves to delay potential refunds while pursuing further judicial review.

The development follows a recent federal court ruling that questioned the statutory basis of certain tariffs introduced under emergency economic powers, prompting calls from some importers for reimbursement of duties paid.

The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal the decision and has requested a temporary delay on any mandated refunds pending the outcome of higher court proceedings.

Officials argue that immediate repayment could create significant administrative disruption and fiscal uncertainty, particularly given the scale of duties collected over several years.

They also maintain that the tariffs were implemented lawfully to protect American industry and national security interests at a time of heightened trade imbalances.

The contested measures were part of a broader trade policy strategy aimed at strengthening domestic manufacturing, countering unfair trade practices and rebalancing economic relationships with major trading partners.

Supporters of the tariffs credit them with generating leverage in trade negotiations and revitalising segments of the US industrial base.

They contend that the recent ruling represents a narrow interpretation of executive authority that warrants careful appellate review.

Businesses challenging the tariffs argue that the court’s finding, if upheld, would entitle importers to substantial refunds.

However, administration lawyers have emphasised that the legal questions involved are complex and far from settled.

They have asked appellate judges to suspend enforcement of the lower court’s decision until the matter is definitively resolved.

The case now moves to the appeals process, where broader questions surrounding presidential trade authority and the scope of emergency economic powers will be examined.

In the meantime, the administration’s request for a delay signals its determination to defend the policy framework it says was designed to safeguard American economic strength and strategic independence.