What follows for the tariffs of President Trump after the decisions of the Cervical Latigazo court?

The most pronounced rates of President Donald Trump fell into the legal limbo this week, throwing uncertainty about a large strip of the president’s characteristic economic policy.

The Trump administration could prevail in a judicial battle over the encumbrances or search for other legal authorities to impose some of the rates, experts told ABC News, but a complete rebirth of the policy now faces formidable obstacles.

Two separated federal courts invalidated the long -range taxes in dozens of countries presented at a rose garden ceremony that Trump had called “day of liberation.” The resolutions also decreased 30% of the rates imposed on China, as well as a 10% basal tax slapped in almost all imports, among other measures.

However, a Federal Court of Appeals moved to temporarily restore the rates on Thursday afternoon, however, keeping the taxes in place while the judges weigh the underlying legal justification.

This is what you should know about what follows for Trump’s tariffs and what happens to the tax revenues already paid, according to experts.

High Risk Judicial Battle

The Court’s decisions this week triggered a legal battle over tariffs that could extend for more than a year and reach the Supreme Court, they told ABC News.

Decisions against taxes in two federal courts, the United States International Trade Court and the United States District Court in Washington, DC, focused on the unprecedented invocation of Trump for the performance of international economic emergency powers as a legal justification for tariffs.

The 1977 law allows the President to stop all transactions with a foreign adversary that represents a threat, including the use of tools such as sanctions and commercial embargoes. But the measure does not explicitly allow tariffs, putting Trump in unproven legal territory.

“These are transcendental actions to reverse an important initiative of the president of the United States,” Alan Wolff, former general deputy director of the World Trade Organization, told ABC News. “It is a true loss for the White House.”

The temporary restoration of the rates allows the policy to continue as the legal struggle develops, but the ruling does not indicate how the judges will intervene in the merits of the case, Wolff added.

“The circumstances in court does not change so much,” Wolff said. “I am sure that the White House wants this to straighten as soon as possible.”

In a publication on social networks, Trump criticized the judges in the United States International Trade Court and promoted the benefits of their tariff policy.

“Where do these three initial judges come from? What other reason could it be? “Trump said.

The three judges panel in the United States International Trade Court included a judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, a judge appointed by Barack Obama and a judge appointed by Trump himself.

Trump added: “In this case, it is only for my successful use of tariffs that many billion dollars have already begun to pour the United States from other countries, money that, without these tariffs, we could not get. It is the difference between having a rich, prosperous and successful United States of America, and all the opposite.”

Until Wednesday, American tariff Political analysis.

The duration of the legal battle may depend on the decisions transmitted from the two Courts of Appeals that handle each of the challenges of the Trump administration, A ABC News, a former commercial official under President Joe Biden and Trump.

If the two appeal courts issued opposite decisions, it would increase the probability that the case takes more than a year and, ultimately, it would reach the Supreme Court, said Childress. But, he added, a couple of similar decisions at the level of the Court of Appeals could accelerate the resolution of the case.

For now, the fate of the rates in question remains very unclear, even after the Court of Appeals temporarily restored them, Childress added.

“There is still a very similar amount of uncertainty,” Childress said.

New tariffs could resort to other legal authorities

If the courts finally govern against Trump’s tariffs, the White House can explore other legal authorities as a means to revive some of the taxes, experts said.

However, in some cases, the alternative legal statutes would require investigations that require a lot of time in federal agencies and put limits within the reach of taxes.

Section 301 of the 1974 Commerce Law allows the Executive to invoke the temporary tariff authority in response to an adverse commercial policy assumed by another country.

Trump’s tariffs on a wide strip of Chinese products during his first mandate were based on section 301, which Biden invoked the service of own rates.

The White House can use section 301 to reimpose tariffs in Mexico, Canada and China on the respective roles of nations in the transport of fentanyl to the United States, said Childress. But a broad invocation of section 301 for tariffs in dozens of countries could raise administrative challenges, since each use of the measure requires federal investigation of alleged abuses, he added.

“It would not be impossible, but it would require many investigations,” Childress said.

The Trump administration is weighing the use of a separate provision of the 1974 Commerce Law to impose specific country tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The White House could also expand its use of section 232 of the Commercial Expansion Law of 1962, which allows the Executive to impose tariffs on a specific product if the Commerce Department considers that foreign production is a threat to national security.

Trump has already invoked the measure to slapped 25% of tariffs in cars, steel and aluminum. According to Trump’s recent Trump comments, the specific additional tariffs of the sector can reach pharmaceutical products and semiconductor chips, according to recent Trump comments.

Companies can receive tax reimbursements

Importers who have paid the tariffs in question will receive government refunds if the taxes are victims of legal challenges, experts told ABC News.

“Companies should recover money if that is the result, and it is a lot of money,” Wolff said.

The federal government will probably stop the issuance of reimbursements until legal cases were resolved, said Childress.

“The importers who made the payments could be looking at one or even two years until these reimbursements are paid,” Childress added.

When looking for a refund, companies must provide detailed information about their imports, the shipping date and where the products entered in the US.

“All that information is necessary to obtain a refund later,” Childress said.