Costco is joining other companies that aren't waiting to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down President Donald Trump's most sweeping import taxes. They're going to court to demand refunds on the tariffs they've paid. The U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled earlier this year that Trump's biggest and boldest import taxes are illegal. The case is now before the Supreme Court. In a Nov. 5 hearing, several of the court's justices expressed doubts that the president had sweeping power to declare national emergencies to impose tariffs on goods from almost every country on earth. If the court strikes down the tariffs, importers may be entitled to refunds on the levies they've paid. “It’s uncertain whether refunds will be granted and, if so, how much,'' said Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. “But the possibility has prompted many companies — including Costco — to file actions in the U.S. Court of International Trade to get in line, so to speak, for potential refunds.'' In a complaint filed last week with the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, Costco said it is demanding the money back now “to ensure that its right to a complete refund is not jeopardized.″ The operator of warehouse-sized stores expressed concern that it could not get a refund once the tariff bills have gone through liquidation by Customs and Border Protection, a process Costco says will start Dec. 15. Revlon and canned seafood and chicken producer Bumble Bee Foods have made similar arguments in the trade court. The challenged tariffs have raised around $90 billion so far. Trump warned back in August that the loss of his tariffs would destroy that American economy and lead to "1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!”

The 3rd Circuit ruled Alina Habba was unlawfully serving as New Jersey’s acting U.S. attorney, rejecting Trump’s attempts to keep her in the role after her term expired.

Prosecutors said on Nov. 21 that Luigi Mangione’s death penalty case in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson should carry on unimpeded, urging a judge to reject a defense push to dismiss charges and rule out capital punishment over Attorney General Pam Bondi’s public statements suggesting Mangione deserves execution. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan also asked U.S. District Court Judge Margaret Garnett to deny the defense’s bid to suppress certain evidence collected during the arrest last year, including a 9 mm handgun, a notebook in which authorities say Mangione described his intent to “wack” an insurance executive, and statements he made to police. “Pretrial publicity, even when intense, is not itself a constitutional defect," prosecutors wrote in a 121-page court filing, citing prior rulings from the Supreme Court and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As for the evidence, which Mangione’s lawyers contend was collected without a warrant and without him being read his rights, prosecutors said police officers were justified in searching the suspect’s backpack to make sure there were no dangerous items. His statements to officers, they said, were made voluntarily and before he was taken into police custody. Rather than dismissing the case outright or barring the government from seeking the death penalty, prosecutors argued, the defense’s concerns can best be alleviated by carefully questioning prospective jurors about their knowledge of the case and ensuring Mangione’s rights are respected at trial. “What the defendant recasts as a constitutional crisis is merely a repackaging of arguments” rejected in previous cases, prosecutors said. “None warrants dismissal of the indictment or categorical preclusion of a congressionally authorized punishment.” Mangione, 27, has pleaded not guilty to state and federal murder charges. In September, a judge threw out state terrorism charges against him but kept the rest of that case — including an intentional murder charge — in place. Mangione is due back in court in the state case on Dec. 1 as his lawyers seek to bar prosecutors from using much of the same evidence seized upon his arrest. Mangione's next court date in the federal case is Jan. 9. Thompson, 50, was killed Dec. 4, 2024, as he arrived at a Manhattan hotel for his company’s annual investor conference. Surveillance video showed a masked gunman shooting him from behind. Police say “delay,” “deny” and “depose” were written on the ammunition, mimicking a phrase used to describe how insurers avoid paying claims. Mangione, the Ivy League-educated scion of a wealthy Maryland family, was arrested five days later while eating breakfast at a McDonald’s restaurant in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Bondi announced in April that she was directing federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty, declaring even before Mangione was formally indicted that capital punishment is warranted for a “premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America.” The defense argued in a September court filing that Bondi’s announcement — which she followed with Instagram posts and a TV appearance — showed the decision was “based on politics, not merit.” They also said her remarks tainted the grand jury process that resulted in his indictment a few weeks later. Bondi’s statements and other official actions — including a highly choreographed perp walk that saw Mangione led up a Manhattan pier by armed officers, and the Trump administration’s flouting of established death penalty procedures — “have violated Mr. Mangione’s constitutional and statutory rights and have fatally prejudiced this death penalty case,” his lawyers said. Trump, who oversaw an unprecedented run of 13 executions at the end of his first term, has also offered opinions about Mangione despite court rules against any pretrial publicity that could interfere with the right to a fair trial. “He shot someone in the back, as clear as you’re looking at me or I’m looking at you. He shot — he looked like a pure assassin,” Trump told Fox News in September. In their Nov. 21 filing, federal prosecutors countered that Bondi’s remarks were irrelevant to the process because there's no evidence that grand jurors who voted to indict Mangione were influenced. “This argument, like others, rests on conjecture rather than evidence,” the prosecution team said. Nor has the defense cited any precedent “suggesting that public commentary renders a grand jury incapable of fulfilling its constitutional role," they added.