warn

The United States Supreme Court ruling against the administration of US President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs has left a question unanswered on what is the refund process for the funds collected over the past several months through the tariffs that had been imposed on most US trading partners .

In a 6–3 decision issued on Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld a lower court ruling that found the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded his authority.

The high court did not specify how the federal government would refund the estimated $175bn collected under the tariffs. In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that issuing refunds would present practical challenges and said it would be “a mess”.

The case will now return to the Court of International Trade to oversee the refund process.

More than 1,000 lawsuits have already been filed by importers in the trade court seeking refunds, and a wave of new cases is expected. Legal experts say the administration will likely require importers to apply for refunds individually. That process could disproportionately burden smaller businesses affected by the tariffs.

“The government is probably not going to voluntarily pay back the money it unlawfully took. Rather, the government is going to make everyone request a refund through different procedures by filing formal protests. They’re going to delay things procedurally as long as they can. Hiring lawyers and going through these procedures costs money and time,” Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

“I imagine the largest companies, who have been prepared for this eventuality, will eventually get their money back. But smaller importers, it’s a cost-benefit analysis where they might shrug their shoulders and say it’s not worth going through the hassle to get the unlawfully imposed taxes paid back to them.”

Trump’s path forward

Despite Friday’s ruling, other sweeping levies remain in place. Trump had invoked Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act to impose sector-specific tariffs on steel and aluminium, cars, copper, lumber, and other products, such as kitchen cabinets, worldwide.

On Friday, Trump said he would impose a 10 percent global tariff for 150 days to replace some of his emergency duties that were struck down. The order would be made under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the duties would be over and above tariffs that are currently in place, Trump said.

The statute allows the president to impose duties of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to “large and serious” balance of payments issues. It does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits.

The president also has other legal avenues available to continue taxing imports aggressively.

“Our trading partners were well aware of the risks the President faced in using IEEPA as the basis for reciprocal and other tariffs. Nevertheless, they chose to conclude deals with Washington, convinced by Washington that other statutes would be utilised to keep the tariffs in place,” Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

“With respect to China, USTR [United States trade representative] still has an active Section 301 investigation on China’s compliance with the Phase One agreement, which could be a major feature of the back-up plan for Beijing.”

The president is expected to travel to Beijing next month to meet his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, to discuss trade.

“The two main options include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the traditional mechanism for imposing tariffs in response to unfair trade practices by other countries. It requires an investigation and a report, but ultimately gives the president considerable discretion to impose tariffs. It has been used in the past and will likely be the most frequently used measure going forward,” Shaffer, the law professor, said.

He noted, however, that the administration’s tariff options could not be applied retroactively, meaning any new tariffs would apply only to future imports rather than covering duties already paid.

Raj Bhala, professor of law at The University of Kansas School of Law, argues there are remedies at the president’s disposal in addition to Section 122. Bhala said that Trump could use Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (also known as the Smoot-Hawley Act). That allows the president to impose a 50 percent tariff to challenge discriminatory trade practices from other countries.

“Each option involves procedural hurdles,” Bhala said.

Congressional pressure

Roberts wrote that the president must “point to clear congressional authorization” to impose tariffs. The ruling has increased pressure on both Trump’s allies and critics in Congress to clarify the scope of executive trade authority.

“What a fantastic ruling for a feckless branch of government. While its current tendency is to abdicate, the court has told Congress to do its job,” a former official in the White House Office of Management and Budget told Al Jazeera in response to the decision.

“Congress must either act with specific legislation, or declare war, which would grant the President the emergency powers to levy tariffs.”

“Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a post on the social media platform X.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, by contrast, welcomed the ruling, saying it will “finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve” and that Trump should end “this reckless trade war for good.”

But how that money will get paid back, and if it was already spent, will require Congress to step in.

“If it has been spent, the money will have to be reallocated by Congress. Congress will have to determine how much is owed to importers, pass a law to fund it, and create a mechanism for repayment. There’s also the question of who is entitled to it. Is it only the importer, or does it extend to the end consumer? Where does the line stop?” Babak Hafezi, professor of international business at American University, told Al Jazeera.

“This is not something that will be fixed in 24 hours. It will most likely take years, possibly even a decade, to resolve all the issues this less-than-a-year-old law has imposed on Americans.”

WITH Heathrow Airport set to add a third runway, there are growing fears that it could increase the price of flights.

Airlines warn that the planned expansion could result in a £250 price increase for passengers on a family fare.

With the expansion set to cost £33billion, The Times has reported that airlines are “seriously worried” that Heathrow’s landing charge will increase to pay back the cost of the project for investors.

Their landing fees are already the highest in the world.

In July 2025, Heathrow Airport proposed to the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to increase airport charges to fund the expansion.

The average charge over the next five years could increase to around £33.26 per passenger, up from the current average of £28.46 per passenger.

GO SEA IT

£9.50 holiday spot with shipwrecks, seals offshore & horseshoe-shaped waterfalls

DREAMY DEALS

Our pick of the best long haul holidays for short haul prices

Now, The Times added that airline bosses have pointed out that the cost of the project would add “at least” £60-£65 to average ticket prices.

This means that the additional cost for a family of four could be as much as £250.

Officials from IAG – the parent company of British Airways, Iberia, Vueling and Aer Lingus – raised their concerns to Downing Street.

Another group called ‘Heathrow Reimagined’ have written to Rachel Reeves about the expansion.

The letter raised points that going ahead with the current model will “deliver a scheme which negatively impacts connectivity, competitiveness and the wider UK economy“.

It added that increased charges that are “already the highest in the world” would undermine the “government’s commitment to reduce the cost of living.”

The letter was signed by the boss of IAG, the chief of Virgin Atlantic and the director-general of the airline trade body International Air Transport Association (Iata).

However, a Heathrow spokeswoman told The Times: “Expansion provides a rare opportunity to drive real economic growth for the UK and deliver value for future generations of passengers.

“With demand consistently outpacing supply, incumbent airlines currently compete to charge a premium and the evidence speaks for itself: airfares at Heathrow have risen by 30 per cent in real terms since 2014, whilst the airport passenger charge has decreased by 19 per cent.”

They added that the analysis has “shown fares will be lower with expansion than without it” and said that they did not “recognise those numbers nor have we seen calculations that would support them.”

The huge expansion for the UK’s busiest airport was given the green light in November 2025.

The Heathrow proposals involve building a 3,500-metre runway which will require a new M25 tunnel and bridges to be built 130 metres west of the existing motorway.

The expansion is estimated to cost £33billion which includes building a 3,500 metre runway.

It will see Heathrow’s capacity increase to 756,000 flights and 150 million passengers per year.

The project has received government backing and is moving forward, but it has not yet received final planning approval or development consent.

Heathrow Airport is making other big changes this year…

London Heathrow will undergo a series of developments this year starting with Terminal 2 and 4…

The airport will improve the passenger experience by using AI-technology and has plans to make flights more punctual along with better baggage facilities.

 Heathrow Airport revealed it will start upgrading Terminal 4 next year costing £1.3billion.

The first step will be building a new multi-storey car park and upgrading its check-in area.

The works will be phased to ensure that there’s no disruption to the running of Terminal 4 – and these are expected to be completed in 2031.

Over in Terminal 2, Heathrow has announced that work will also begin on a new baggage system that will be able to handle 31,000 bags each day.

In order to speed up flights and improve punctuality, it will install AI-powered turnaround tech. This will involve a network of cameras being installed across Heathrow.

Using AI to analyse data, the airport will speed up turnaround times between flights, which will make journeys more punctual.

Coverage is expected to be across all terminals by the end of 2026.

Food security experts say famine thresholds for acute malnutrition exceeded in Darfur’s Um Baru and Kernoi.

Acute malnutrition has reached famine levels in two more areas of western Sudan’s Darfur region, United Nations-backed experts warn, as a civil war between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese army has caused widespread hunger.

In an alert issued on Thursday by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), global food security experts said famine thresholds for acute malnutrition had been surpassed in North Darfur State’s contested areas of Um Baru and Kernoi.

The IPC alert is not a ‍formal famine classification, but it highlights alarming levels of hunger based on the latest data.

In Um Baru, the rate of acutely malnourished children aged under five was ​nearly double the famine threshold with 53 percent affected, the report said.

Nearly a third of children in Kernoi suffered from acute malnutrition, it added.

“These alarming rates suggest an increased risk of excess mortality and raise concern that nearby areas may be experiencing similar catastrophic conditions,” the report said.

Thursday’s alert, based on data available up to February, comes nearly three months after the IPC confirmed famine conditions in el-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, and Kadugli, the capital of South Kordofan, about 800km (500 miles) to the east.

El-Fasher, long the Sudanese army’s final stronghold in the Darfur region, fell to the RSF in October after 18 months of bombardment and starvation.

Um Baru and Kernoi are near the border with Chad and have received some of the tens of thousands of displaced people who fled el-Fasher when it fell to the RSF. Fighting subsequently has been reported in both locations.

Since April 2023, Sudan has been engulfed in a devastating war between the army and the RSF, which has killed tens of thousands of people, displaced nearly 11 million and driven multiple regions into famine and hunger.

The IPC said 20 more areas in Darfur and neighbouring Kordofan were at risk of famine.

SACRAMENTO — As massive federal cuts are upending the healthcare system in California, analysts and healthcare professionals are urging state lawmakers to soften the blow by creating new revenue streams and helping residents navigate through the newly-imposed red tape.

“It impacts not only uninsured but also Medicare and commercially insured patients who rely on the same system,” said Dolly Goel, a physician and chief officer for the Santa Clara Valley Healthcare Administration. “People will die.”

Goel was among more than a dozen speakers this week at a state Assembly Health Committee hearing held to collect input on how to address cuts enacted by a Republican-backed tax and spending bill signed last year by President Trump. The committee’s Republican members — Assemblymembers Phillip Chen of Yorba Linda, Natasha Johnson of Lake Elsinore, Joe Patterson of Rockin, and Kate Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon — did not attend.

The so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” passed by Republicans shifts federal funding away from safety-net programs and toward tax cuts and immigration enforcement. A recent report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which advises the state Legislature on budgetary issues, estimated this will reduce funding for healthcare by “tens of billions of dollars” in California and warned about 1.2 million people could lose coverage through Medi-Cal, the state’s version of the federal Medicaid program providing healthcare coverage to low-income Americans.

Congress allowed enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire, which is dramatically increasing the cost of privately-purchased health insurance. Covered California, the state’s Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace, estimates hundreds of thousands of Californians will either be stripped of coverage or drop out due to increased cost.

Sandra Hernández, president of the California Health Care Foundation, said the federal legislation creates administrative hurdles, requiring Medicaid beneficiaries to meet new work or income requirements and to undergo the eligibility re-determination process every six months instead of annually.

“We are looking at a scenario where otherwise eligible working parents lose their coverage simply because they aren’t able to navigate a complex verification process in a timely way,” she said.

California should move aggressively to automate verification instead of putting the burden of proof on beneficiaries, Hernández said. She advised legislators to center new healthcare strategies around technology, like artificial intelligence and telehealth services, to improve efficiency and keep costs down.

“While the federal landscape has shifted, California has enormous power to mitigate the damage,” said Hernández. “California has had a long tradition of taking care of its own.”

Hannah Orbach-Mandel, an analyst with the California Budget and Policy Center, said legislators should establish new revenue sources.

“A common sense place to start is by eliminating corporate tax loopholes and ensuring that highly profitable corporations pay their fair share in state taxes,” she said, adding that California loses out on billions annually because of the “water’s edge” tax provision, which allows multinational corporations to exclude the income of their foreign subsidiaries from state taxation.

One proposal to raise money for state healthcare benefits already is raising controversy. Under the Billionaire Tax Act, Californians worth more than $1 billion would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total wealth. The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the union behind the act, said the measure would raise much-needed money for healthcare, education and food assistance programs. It is opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, among others.

During last week’s legislative hearing in Sacramento, other speakers stressed the importance of communicating clearly with the public, collaborating with nonprofits and county governments and bracing for an influx of hospital patients.

Those who lose health insurance will skip medications and primary care and subsequently get sicker and end up in the emergency room, explained Goel. She said this will strain hospital staff and lead to longer wait times and delayed care for all patients.

The federal cuts come at a time when California is struggling with its own budgetary woes. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the state will have an $18-billion budget shortfall in the upcoming fiscal year.

At the start of the hearing, Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda) criticized the federal government for leaving states in the lurch and prioritizing immigration enforcement over healthcare.

The Republican-led Congress and the president provided a staggering funding increase to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. The agency’s annual budget has ballooned to $85 billion.

“The federal dollars which once supported healthcare for working families are now being funneled into mass deportation operations,” said Bonta, who chairs the committee. “Operations that resulted in tragic murders — this is where our healthcare funding is going.”