周三，一位联邦法官下令特朗普政府启动一项漫长的任务：向那些缴纳了最高法院近期裁定无效关税的公司退还数百亿美元。

理查德·伊顿法官由前总统比尔·克林顿任命，他在一份三页的命令中详细阐述了这项预计涉及1300亿美元的退款流程。他表示，退款流程将首先由美国海关和边境保护局计算进口商在没有这些现已无效的关税的情况下本应缴纳的税款。伊顿还明确表示，他对这些退款拥有专属管辖权。目前，已有超过1000家公司就此向美国国际贸易法院提起诉讼。

伊顿写道：“首席法官已表明，我是唯一有权审理与《国际紧急经济权力法》关税退款案件的法官。因此，其他法官，即使是本法院的法官，也不会得出任何相反的结论。”

此案由Atmus Filtration公司提起，该公司曾缴纳特朗普总统去年依据《国际紧急经济权力法》紧急对几乎所有国家征收的关税。

《国际紧急经济权力法》是一项1977年颁布的法律，允许总统在因外国威胁宣布国家紧急状态后，对某些经济交易进行监管或阻止，例如实施制裁。

今年2月，最高法院以6比3的投票结果，阻止特朗普利用该紧急状态法对贸易伙伴征收大范围关税。多数意见认为，即使在宣布国家紧急状态之后，《国际紧急经济权力法》也未授权征收关税，因为国会并未明确赋予行政部门这项权力。

伊顿表示，所有缴纳了这些关税的进口商都有权从最高法院的裁决中受益。

伊顿还表示，美国海关与边境保护局应将受影响的进口额计算为如同从未征收过这些关税一样，法官暗示这将最终为相关公司获得退款铺平道路。

最高法院多数派在其裁决中并未涉及退款程序，而是将其交由下级法院处理。然而，布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官在其异议意见中质疑美国财政部如何才能向企业退还数百亿美元的税款，并警告称这将带来“严重的实际后果”。

卡瓦诺写道：“美国可能需要向已缴纳《国际紧急经济权力法》关税的进口商退还数百亿美元，即便一些进口商可能已经将成本转嫁给了消费者或其他方。正如在口头辩论中承认的那样，退款程序很可能是一团糟。”

伊顿大法官在发布命令前的一次听证会上反驳了这一观点。

据《政客》报道，伊顿大法官表示：“提供退款并没有什么特别新颖之处……我相信，提供这些退款不会造成混乱，也不会导致一团糟。”

特朗普政府在听证会上表示，可能会对伊顿法官推迟执行该命令的裁决提出上诉。福克斯新闻数字频道已联系白宫寻求置评。

伊顿法官将于周五主持召开闭门会议，与案件各方进一步讨论退款流程。

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Wednesday to begin the drawn-out task of refunding billions of dollars to companies that paid tariffs the Supreme Court recently invalidated.

Judge Richard Eaton, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, laid out the estimated $130 billion refund process in a three-page order, saying it would begin with U.S. Customs and Border Protection calculating what importers would have paid without the now-invalid tariffs. Eaton also made clear he had sole jurisdiction over the refunds, which more than 1,000 companies have sued over in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

“The Chief Judge has indicated that I am the only judge who will hear cases pertaining to the refund of [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] duties,” Eaton wrote. “So there is no danger that another Judge, even one in this Court, will reach any contrary conclusions.”

The case in question was brought by Atmus Filtration, Inc., a company that paid President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which Trump imposed on nearly every country on an emergency basis under IEEPA last year.

The IEEPA is a 1977 law that allows the president – after declaring a national emergency in response to foreign threats – to regulate or block certain economic transactions, such as by imposing sanctions.

The Supreme Court decided 6-3 in February to block Trump’s use of the emergency law to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners. The majority held that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, even after a national emergency declaration, because Congress did not clearly grant the executive branch that power.

All importers who paid those duties were entitled to benefit from the Supreme Court’s ruling, Eaton said.

Eaton said CBP should calculate the affected imports as if the tariffs had never applied, which the judge signaled would eventually pave the way for refunds to the companies.

The Supreme Court majority left the refund process unaddressed in its decision, leaving it to the lower courts to mete out. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, questioned in his dissent how the U.S. Treasury could go about refunding companies to the tune of billions of dollars, warning of “serious practical consequences.”

“The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,” Kavanaugh wrote. “As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’”

Eaton disputed that notion during a hearing just prior to issuing his order.

“There is nothing particularly novel about the provision of refunds. … I believe that there will be no chaos associated with the provision of these refunds and that it will not result in a mess,” Eaton said, according to Politico.

The Trump administration indicated during the hearing that it is likely to appeal Eaton’s order to delay it from taking effect. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

Eaton is set to preside over a closed-door conference with the parties in the case on Friday to further discuss the refund process.