New York
Government fights trade judge’s order for tariff refunds to all importers
NEW YORK (AP) — Government lawyers said a Court of International Trade judge overstepped his authority by ordering the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to issue refunds to all companies that paid tariffs that were deemed illegal in February, even those that didn’t file a lawsuit in trade court.
The government filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in June and filed its opening brief on Monday.
In it, government lawyers point to a case that went before the Supreme Court in June 2025, over birthright citizenship. Part of the decision in that case limited the use of universal injunctions, which apply a ruling to all people or companies affected, not just specific litigants.
Judge Richard Eaton, who is overseeing the tariff lawsuits in the Court of International Trade, has said the limits on universal injunctions don’t apply in this case, but the government disagrees.
“The CIT’s universal injunctions, requiring the government to refund IEEPA duties for all importers (including non-party importers), cannot possibly be squared with CASA,” — the court case that limited universal injunctions, the government wrote it its brief.
The majority of tariff refunds have already been paid out. CBP has already processed and certified $100 billion in refunds. At issue are companies that paid tariffs that went through the customs process and entries were finalized. There’s a Congressional rule that the CBP cannot reprocess tariffs for which the administrative refund process is no longer available. Those companies are free to file a lawsuit to get that money back, the government said.
“The Court of International Trade (CIT) has already entered hundreds of such orders in suits brought by importers seeking that relief, and importers who have not yet brought such suits are free to do so within the statute of limitations,” government lawyers wrote in the brief.
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, said it appears the government has the better legal argument, but businesses, especially smaller businesses, might suffer.
“The government took this money under a law the Supreme Court said never authorized it. Getting it back should not turn on whether a business could afford to sue,” he said. “Refunding an unlawful tariff should not be a reward for litigating. ... You cannot really ask a small company to sue for money it does not know it is owed, on a deadline it has never heard of.”
New York
Groups sue Trump administration over its targeting of International Criminal Court
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Human Rights Watch and three other advocacy groups sued the Trump administration on Tuesday to challenge its campaign against the International Criminal Court, arguing that sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors are undermining the ability to prosecute people responsible for humanity’s worst crimes.
The complaint — filed in the Southern District of New York — says that President Donald Trump’s executive order last year targeting the Hague-based criminal court and the U.S. sanctions issued against a U.N. human rights expert and three Palestinian rights groups represent a “blatantly illegal attack on international justice and should be struck down,” according to a press release.
The lawsuit is the latest example of organizations pushing back on what they call the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine international law and prevent efforts to combat impunity by governments around the world.
“The fact that so many leading human rights and humanitarian organizations have come together to challenge Trump’s unlawful executive order demonstrates the widespread harm it is causing across civil society groups dedicated to bringing those responsible for grave crimes to justice,” said Andrew Loewenstein of Foley Hoag LLP, the lead counsel representing the plaintiffs.
The groups assert that the financial and legal penalties against the ICC have forced them to “curtail a wide range of human rights and legal work in violation of their First and Fifth Amendment rights under the US Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
Other organizations joining the lawsuit are the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Open Society Institute. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Efforts to retain the global tribunal’s power come as the ICC faces enormous pressure, both internally and from its more than 120 member states. Among those sanctioned by the U.S. last year was Karim Khan, who was the ICC’s chief prosecutor until he was removed from the post last month, nearly two years after sexual misconduct allegations against him first emerged, as detailed in stories by The Associated Press.
The Trump administration had issued those sanctions against Khan and a dozen other ICC staff in retaliation for warrants the court has issued for top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over the war in Gaza and investigations into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.
“The Trump administration seeks a get out of jail free card for whomever it chooses. And with this case, we say no,” Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch, said during a press conference Tuesday.
Last month, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the U.S. was launching a “sweeping campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to U.S. sovereignty.”
In a video message, Rubio said the U.S. would pressure member states to withdraw from the institution, sanction organizations that work with the court and ban staff from traveling to the United States. Countries that “enjoy the benefits of the U.S. security umbrella” will be called upon to reject the court’s jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, he added.
Several countries, including U.S.-allied Venezuela, announced they would withdraw from the court shortly after Rubio’s statements and Khan’s removal.
Florida
U.S. prosecutors want Tate brothers to remain in custody as they fight extradition to UK
MIAMI (AP) — Prosecutors want social media influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate to remain in federal custody, arguing Monday that the brothers are a flight risk and a danger to the community, as they fight extradition to the United Kingdom, where the brothers are accused of rape and sex trafficking.
Three days after defense attorneys filed a motion for release, prosecutors filed their response in Miami federal court, where a hearing on Thursday will determine if the brothers should stay in jail or be released during what could be a monthslong extradition process.
The brothers have repeatedly denied wrongdoing.
The detention hearing is likely to be the first time the Tates leave the Federal Detention Center in Miami since making a brief court appearance two days after their July 18 arrest. The Tates have become among the world’s most polarizing internet personalities with their promotion of wealth, male dominance and misogyny through their social media empire. The new allegations are the latest in the Tates’ long-running international legal saga spanning the U.S., Britain and Romania.
Prosecutors claim a ‘heightened risk of flight’
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office filing, the Tates should be detained pending their extradition hearing because they cannot overcome the strong presumption against bail in international extradition cases.
The serious pending U.K. charges involving human trafficking and violent rapes and assaults against multiple victims, along with allegations in Romania that the Tates attempted to intimidate witnesses, present a clear public safety concern, prosecutors say.
“That the Tates also claim to maintain multiple passports and identities, have access to excessive wealth and influence in numerous countries, and are stridently unwilling to voluntarily return to face prosecution in the United Kingdom, collectively demonstrate a heightened risk of flight that no amount of bond could overcome,” the filing says.
The defense motion filed Friday acknowledges there is a presumption against bond in extradition proceedings but argues that release can be granted in special circumstances. It says the Tates’ high profile makes it nearly impossible for them to flee, and that they regularly post updates about their locations on social media.
While prosecutors call the brothers a flight risk, their attorneys said they have proved they are not by complying with all pretrial restrictions in Romania, where they are accused of luring women for sexual exploitation.
The U.K. has until mid-September to provide evidence to the State Department to support extradition, meaning the brothers could spend months in FDC Miami before the proceedings are resolved, the defense motion says. No date has been set for an extradition hearing. They are being held in a special unit for their own protection.
Legal troubles follow the Tate brothers
The brothers have long claimed that their violent and misogynistic statements have been taken out of context or were intended as jokes.
The former professional kickboxers, who have dual U.S. and U.K. citizenship, have millions of social media followers and are vocal supporters of President Donald Trump. The White House has said the brothers shouldn’t expect any help from the president.
British prosecutors said the new charges relate to four new accusers and were brought after authorities received evidence from police in Bedfordshire, in southeastern England. The allegations, which span from 2010 to 2017, include rape, assault, trafficking and offenses relating to “indecent images of a child and extreme pornography.”
The brothers are already charged with rape, bodily harm, human trafficking and controlling prostitution for gain relating to three other accusers in the U.K. between 2012 and 2015.
The brothers moved to Romania in 2016 and were arrested there in 2022, accused of participating in schemes to lure women for sexual exploitation. They denied those allegations, and the Romanian case hasn’t moved forward due to legal and procedural problems.
The Tates’ attorneys have said the Romanian court has granted a U.K. request for extradition that will take effect after Romanian proceedings conclude.
Andrew Tate, 39, became famous a decade ago when he was a contestant on the U.K. reality television show “Big Brother.” He was ejected from the show when a video appeared to show him assaulting a woman.
He has amassed over 10 million followers on X but has been banned from other platforms, including YouTube, TikTok and Instagram, for violating hate speech guidelines. He has made widely condemned comments, such as saying women who are sexually assaulted should bear some responsibility for the attacks and sharing graphic descriptions of how he might attack women.
Tristan Tate, 38, has worked with his brother on multiple businesses, including the production of online webcam pornography.
Government fights trade judge’s order for tariff refunds to all importers
NEW YORK (AP) — Government lawyers said a Court of International Trade judge overstepped his authority by ordering the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to issue refunds to all companies that paid tariffs that were deemed illegal in February, even those that didn’t file a lawsuit in trade court.
The government filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in June and filed its opening brief on Monday.
In it, government lawyers point to a case that went before the Supreme Court in June 2025, over birthright citizenship. Part of the decision in that case limited the use of universal injunctions, which apply a ruling to all people or companies affected, not just specific litigants.
Judge Richard Eaton, who is overseeing the tariff lawsuits in the Court of International Trade, has said the limits on universal injunctions don’t apply in this case, but the government disagrees.
“The CIT’s universal injunctions, requiring the government to refund IEEPA duties for all importers (including non-party importers), cannot possibly be squared with CASA,” — the court case that limited universal injunctions, the government wrote it its brief.
The majority of tariff refunds have already been paid out. CBP has already processed and certified $100 billion in refunds. At issue are companies that paid tariffs that went through the customs process and entries were finalized. There’s a Congressional rule that the CBP cannot reprocess tariffs for which the administrative refund process is no longer available. Those companies are free to file a lawsuit to get that money back, the government said.
“The Court of International Trade (CIT) has already entered hundreds of such orders in suits brought by importers seeking that relief, and importers who have not yet brought such suits are free to do so within the statute of limitations,” government lawyers wrote in the brief.
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, said it appears the government has the better legal argument, but businesses, especially smaller businesses, might suffer.
“The government took this money under a law the Supreme Court said never authorized it. Getting it back should not turn on whether a business could afford to sue,” he said. “Refunding an unlawful tariff should not be a reward for litigating. ... You cannot really ask a small company to sue for money it does not know it is owed, on a deadline it has never heard of.”
New York
Groups sue Trump administration over its targeting of International Criminal Court
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Human Rights Watch and three other advocacy groups sued the Trump administration on Tuesday to challenge its campaign against the International Criminal Court, arguing that sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors are undermining the ability to prosecute people responsible for humanity’s worst crimes.
The complaint — filed in the Southern District of New York — says that President Donald Trump’s executive order last year targeting the Hague-based criminal court and the U.S. sanctions issued against a U.N. human rights expert and three Palestinian rights groups represent a “blatantly illegal attack on international justice and should be struck down,” according to a press release.
The lawsuit is the latest example of organizations pushing back on what they call the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine international law and prevent efforts to combat impunity by governments around the world.
“The fact that so many leading human rights and humanitarian organizations have come together to challenge Trump’s unlawful executive order demonstrates the widespread harm it is causing across civil society groups dedicated to bringing those responsible for grave crimes to justice,” said Andrew Loewenstein of Foley Hoag LLP, the lead counsel representing the plaintiffs.
The groups assert that the financial and legal penalties against the ICC have forced them to “curtail a wide range of human rights and legal work in violation of their First and Fifth Amendment rights under the US Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
Other organizations joining the lawsuit are the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Open Society Institute. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Efforts to retain the global tribunal’s power come as the ICC faces enormous pressure, both internally and from its more than 120 member states. Among those sanctioned by the U.S. last year was Karim Khan, who was the ICC’s chief prosecutor until he was removed from the post last month, nearly two years after sexual misconduct allegations against him first emerged, as detailed in stories by The Associated Press.
The Trump administration had issued those sanctions against Khan and a dozen other ICC staff in retaliation for warrants the court has issued for top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over the war in Gaza and investigations into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.
“The Trump administration seeks a get out of jail free card for whomever it chooses. And with this case, we say no,” Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch, said during a press conference Tuesday.
Last month, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the U.S. was launching a “sweeping campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to U.S. sovereignty.”
In a video message, Rubio said the U.S. would pressure member states to withdraw from the institution, sanction organizations that work with the court and ban staff from traveling to the United States. Countries that “enjoy the benefits of the U.S. security umbrella” will be called upon to reject the court’s jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, he added.
Several countries, including U.S.-allied Venezuela, announced they would withdraw from the court shortly after Rubio’s statements and Khan’s removal.
Florida
U.S. prosecutors want Tate brothers to remain in custody as they fight extradition to UK
MIAMI (AP) — Prosecutors want social media influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate to remain in federal custody, arguing Monday that the brothers are a flight risk and a danger to the community, as they fight extradition to the United Kingdom, where the brothers are accused of rape and sex trafficking.
Three days after defense attorneys filed a motion for release, prosecutors filed their response in Miami federal court, where a hearing on Thursday will determine if the brothers should stay in jail or be released during what could be a monthslong extradition process.
The brothers have repeatedly denied wrongdoing.
The detention hearing is likely to be the first time the Tates leave the Federal Detention Center in Miami since making a brief court appearance two days after their July 18 arrest. The Tates have become among the world’s most polarizing internet personalities with their promotion of wealth, male dominance and misogyny through their social media empire. The new allegations are the latest in the Tates’ long-running international legal saga spanning the U.S., Britain and Romania.
Prosecutors claim a ‘heightened risk of flight’
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office filing, the Tates should be detained pending their extradition hearing because they cannot overcome the strong presumption against bail in international extradition cases.
The serious pending U.K. charges involving human trafficking and violent rapes and assaults against multiple victims, along with allegations in Romania that the Tates attempted to intimidate witnesses, present a clear public safety concern, prosecutors say.
“That the Tates also claim to maintain multiple passports and identities, have access to excessive wealth and influence in numerous countries, and are stridently unwilling to voluntarily return to face prosecution in the United Kingdom, collectively demonstrate a heightened risk of flight that no amount of bond could overcome,” the filing says.
The defense motion filed Friday acknowledges there is a presumption against bond in extradition proceedings but argues that release can be granted in special circumstances. It says the Tates’ high profile makes it nearly impossible for them to flee, and that they regularly post updates about their locations on social media.
While prosecutors call the brothers a flight risk, their attorneys said they have proved they are not by complying with all pretrial restrictions in Romania, where they are accused of luring women for sexual exploitation.
The U.K. has until mid-September to provide evidence to the State Department to support extradition, meaning the brothers could spend months in FDC Miami before the proceedings are resolved, the defense motion says. No date has been set for an extradition hearing. They are being held in a special unit for their own protection.
Legal troubles follow the Tate brothers
The brothers have long claimed that their violent and misogynistic statements have been taken out of context or were intended as jokes.
The former professional kickboxers, who have dual U.S. and U.K. citizenship, have millions of social media followers and are vocal supporters of President Donald Trump. The White House has said the brothers shouldn’t expect any help from the president.
British prosecutors said the new charges relate to four new accusers and were brought after authorities received evidence from police in Bedfordshire, in southeastern England. The allegations, which span from 2010 to 2017, include rape, assault, trafficking and offenses relating to “indecent images of a child and extreme pornography.”
The brothers are already charged with rape, bodily harm, human trafficking and controlling prostitution for gain relating to three other accusers in the U.K. between 2012 and 2015.
The brothers moved to Romania in 2016 and were arrested there in 2022, accused of participating in schemes to lure women for sexual exploitation. They denied those allegations, and the Romanian case hasn’t moved forward due to legal and procedural problems.
The Tates’ attorneys have said the Romanian court has granted a U.K. request for extradition that will take effect after Romanian proceedings conclude.
Andrew Tate, 39, became famous a decade ago when he was a contestant on the U.K. reality television show “Big Brother.” He was ejected from the show when a video appeared to show him assaulting a woman.
He has amassed over 10 million followers on X but has been banned from other platforms, including YouTube, TikTok and Instagram, for violating hate speech guidelines. He has made widely condemned comments, such as saying women who are sexually assaulted should bear some responsibility for the attacks and sharing graphic descriptions of how he might attack women.
Tristan Tate, 38, has worked with his brother on multiple businesses, including the production of online webcam pornography.
