Another judge rules against the Trump admin

President Donald Trump will need to figure out how to reimburse the tens of billions of dollars it illegally collected in tariffs, and in a way that provides “efficient justice,” according to a senior judge who ruled on Wednesday.

Richard Eaton, a senior judge on the U.S. Court of International Trade, decided in a case filed by the company Atmus Filtration that the trade court’s chief judge had given him jurisdiction over the more than 1,000 companies that have sued for refunds. As such, his decision for Atmus Filtration applies to every company demanding a refund from Trump.

“So there is no danger that another Judge, even one in this Court, will reach any contrary conclusions,” Eaton explained. “To find otherwise would be to thwart the efficient administration of justice and to deny those importers who have filed suit the efficient resolution of their claims, and to deny entirely importers who have not filed suit the benefit of the” Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that Trump lacked the unilateral authority to impose sweeping tariffs.

In addition to costing Trump tens of billions in refunds, a Center for American Progress study last month determined that America lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump took office, even though the tariffs were supposed to bring those jobs back.

“Far from the manufacturing sector ‘roaring back’ as Trump promised, the United States has lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs over the past year,” wrote the Center for American Progress’ Allison McManus and Dawn Le. “These actions have pushed the country’s closest trading partners to seek deals elsewhere, including with China: Canada, India, Japan, South Korea, and the European Union have all recently sought new agreements without the United States.”

They added that the tariffs are encouraging America’s past trading partners to seek new deals with less volatile markets.

“Over time, each of these deals will result in markets that were once enjoyed by U.S. suppliers increasingly oriented away from them — and the rules of international engagement increasingly written by foreign governments,” McManus and Le pointed out.

Mona Charen of The Bulwark, a conservative publication, worried last month that the tariffs’ widespread unpopularity could hurt Trump in the upcoming midterm elections.

“Voters are rarely able to connect policy to outcomes, but they have done so in the case of tariffs,” Charen wrote. “Back in 2024, Americans were about equally divided on the question of trade, with some favoring higher tariffs and roughly similar numbers opting for lower tariffs. Experience has changed their views.”

Fortune’s Steve H. Hanke also wrote last month that Trump’s tariffs betray a deeper philosophical problem with how the president perceives global economics.

“This wrongheaded mercantilist view of international trade and external accounts has its roots in how individual businesses operate,” Hanke argued. “A healthy business generates positive free cash flows, with revenues that exceed outlays. If a business cannot generate positive free cash flows on a sustained basis and cannot take on more debt or issue more equity to finance itself, then it will be forced to declare bankruptcy.”