Trump's new tariff 'shenanigans' are about to hit another brick wall: report

Any hope that the Donald Trump administration might have about dragging its feet and not refunding the tariff money the Supreme Court said was illegally collected is headed for a reality check, attorney Ray Brescia reported for MS NOW.
The Supreme Court designated the relatively obscure Court of International Trade to oversee implementation of its stunning February ruling on tariffs after the high court's own decision left critical questions unanswered.
When the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump last February, readers had to wade through seven separate judicial opinions totaling 170 pages to grasp that the court had invalidated sweeping tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Yet the decision sidestepped a crucial issue: how the administration would refund billions in illegal tariffs collected from businesses and consumers.
Rather than address this question directly, the Supreme Court returned the matter to the Court of International Trade, a body Congress created in 1980 to resolve disputes affecting international commerce.
What might have seemed like an opportunity for delays has instead produced an unlikely champion of accountability. Judge Richard Eaton has emerged as a formidable obstacle to any administration strategy of prolonging the litigation.

Rather than adopt the verbose, jargon-laden style common among legal authorities today, Eaton has demonstrated a masterclass in brevity and clarity. His straightforward approach leaves no doubt about the administration's legal obligations and severely constrains its ability to evade restitution.
Eaton's opinions have been exemplary in their judicial economy and efficiency, with no patience for bureaucratic delays, with Brescia writing that Eaton, "appears to be holding the administration’s feet to the fire and does not appear like he is about to tolerate many shenanigans should the administration seek to drag those feet in an effort to evade the law."
Constitutional law requires tariffs to be lawful, and the Supreme Court has confirmed these were not. Yet without enforceable remedies, such rulings become hollow. A seasoned judge operating from lower Manhattan—someone with decades of courtroom experience managing litigation tactics—has ensured the rule of law prevails through straightforward, decisive action.
Courts must function as meaningful checks on executive power abuses. Judges like Eaton, willing to clearly articulate what the law demands in accessible, concise language, prove essential to that constitutional role.