2/28/26 — DOJ Moves to Delay IEEPA Tariff Refund Process

On Friday, February 27, DOJ moved to slow the IEEPA tariff refund process in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, No. 25-1812 (Fed. Cir.).

DOJ asked the Federal Circuit not to act until the Supreme Court's judgment issues under Rule 45.3 (around March 24, 2026) and flagged (but did not commit to) a possible rehearing petition before the March 17, 2026 Rule 44.1 deadline. It argued that plaintiffs face only compensable monetary harm, and requested a further 90-day stay of the mandate after the Supreme Court's judgment so that the "political branches" can "consider options." DOJ also emphasized that the invalidated IEEPA tariffs have now been replaced by a new global surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, arguing that any refund process must be designed in light of that new regime. DOJ characterized the importers' push for an immediate mandate as an attempt to be the "center of attention in remedial proceedings" at the CIT, arguing there is no basis to depart from the ordinary course in which the Federal Circuit waits for the Supreme Court to send down its judgment (either 32 days after the decision or after denial of rehearing). The government maintained that the importers have not shown irreparable harm and should not be permitted to proceed at "breakneck speed," urging instead that the appellate court wait 90 days to give Congress a chance to craft a legislative solution.

In parallel, DOJ asked the Court of International Trade for up to 120 days before refund-related litigation resumes, with plaintiffs' opposition due March 17, 2026.

2/27/26 — Trump on SCOTUS Rehearing

President Donald Trump is escalating his criticism of the Supreme Court's recent decision striking down his global tariff program, while openly questioning whether the justices could revisit the case. In a recent speech, Trump asked whether a "rehearing or readjudication" might be possible, signaling that the White House is not ready to concede on one of the president's core economic priorities.

The Court's 6-3 Decision

The Court's 6-3 decision, issued on February 20, held that Trump's use of emergency powers under IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs on imports exceeded the authority granted by federal law. The ruling threatens to unwind a tariff framework the administration has long argued is essential to protecting American manufacturing and reducing the trade deficit. Trump has warned that the decision could lead to what he calls an "undeserved windfall" for foreign governments and companies.

Can the Supreme Court Rehear the Case?

In his remarks, Trump suggested he was "sure that the Supreme Court did not have this in mind" when it issued the decision, framing the outcome as a potential loss of "hundreds of billions of dollars" in tariff revenue. He then raised the prospect of further legal action, asking whether there is a mechanism for the Court to rehear or otherwise reconsider the case. While Supreme Court rules do allow parties to request rehearing, such petitions are rarely granted and generally require showing that the Court overlooked or misapprehended a key point of law or fact.

Alternative Legal Avenues

Despite the setback, Trump has vowed to keep tariffs at the center of his economic agenda. He has indicated that his administration will lean on alternative statutory authorities -- such as longstanding trade laws -- to preserve or reconfigure tariff measures in ways that comply with the Court's ruling. In recent public appearances, including his State of the Union address, he reiterated his belief that tariff revenue could one day significantly reduce or even replace certain forms of federal taxation on workers and families.

What Comes Next

The decision, and Trump's response to it, have intensified debate in Washington over the scope of presidential power on trade. Supporters argue that strong tariffs are necessary leverage in negotiations and a vital shield for domestic jobs. Critics counter that broad unilateral tariffs can drive up prices for U.S. consumers and businesses, invite retaliation from trading partners, and bypass Congress's constitutional role in setting tax and trade policy. As Trump floats the idea of a rehearing and explores new legal avenues, both investors and foreign governments are watching closely for signs of how U.S. trade policy will evolve in the months ahead.

2/26/26 — IEEPA Tariffs: Importers Move for Permanent Injunction and Refunds After Supreme Court Win

Importers challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) have taken a major next step in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision holding that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. On February 24, the plaintiffs in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump (Ct. Int'l Trade No. 25-00066) filed a motion for permanent injunctive relief at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The motion asks the court not only to bar any future collection of IEEPA-based tariffs, but also to compel the government to put in place concrete procedures to refund all unlawfully collected duties, with interest, on a prompt and administrable basis.

The case is the lead challenge to the Trump administration's use of IEEPA to impose reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico that were framed as combating the flow of fentanyl. The Supreme Court's merits decision earlier this month invalidated these tariffs by concluding that IEEPA is not a tariff-granting statute, leaving the lower courts to sort out the scope of injunctive relief and the mechanics of refunds. The new motion by V.O.S. and its co-plaintiffs is aimed squarely at those remedial issues, which are now front and center for importers and the government alike.

What the Plaintiffs Are Asking the CIT to Do

The motion seeks two principal forms of relief. First, the plaintiffs ask for a permanent injunction foreclosing any attempt to reimpose IEEPA tariffs through future orders, even though Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has already been directed to stop collecting IEEPA tariffs following the Supreme Court's ruling. The plaintiffs acknowledge that CBP has ceased prospective collection, but they argue that a permanent injunction is still necessary to cement that result and prevent any future administration from attempting to resurrect IEEPA-based tariffs through new executive orders or emergency declarations.

Second, and more consequential for many importers, the motion asks the CIT to order the government to issue all necessary administrative orders to effectuate that injunction, explicitly including orders needed to promptly refund all tariffs paid, with interest, under IEEPA. The plaintiffs highlight the repeated assurances the government has made in the CIT and the Federal Circuit that if the tariffs were struck down, refund mechanisms would be made available. At the same time, they point to public comments by President Donald Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that appear to question the speed or scope of relief, and they argue that these statements underscore the need for court-supervised refund procedures.

The plaintiffs further suggest that the court may need to fashion a more detailed injunction directing the agencies to adopt the most expeditious means of providing accurate refunds and interest payments. They explicitly note that any procedures developed in V.O.S. could serve as a template for numerous other current and future cases, and they tell the court they are willing to work collaboratively with the government to design that relief. The motion also flags that the CIT may wish to consolidate the other related pending cases with V.O.S. to ensure fair and prompt resolution of all IEEPA tariff claims on a coordinated basis.

The Nationwide Injunction Question After CASA v. Trump

The motion lands in a complex remedial posture. Previously, the CIT issued a permanent injunction vacating the executive orders that had imposed the IEEPA tariffs, and that injunction operated on a nationwide basis. That relief was stayed during the appeal, and the Federal Circuit remanded for further proceedings after the Supreme Court's decision in CASA v. Trump. In CASA, the Court made clear that nationwide or universal injunctions that extend relief to non-parties should be the exception, not the rule, and that courts should ordinarily tailor relief to afford complete relief only to the parties before them.

With the Supreme Court's merits decision on IEEPA now issued, the CIT must revisit the remedy in V.O.S. under this CASA framework. Interestingly, the plaintiffs' new motion acknowledges that, given the Supreme Court's holding that IEEPA tariffs are invalid, the debate about the geographic scope of the CIT's injunction is largely academic. The plaintiffs argue that because the Supreme Court's judgment is binding nationwide, any attempt by the government to impose IEEPA-based tariffs on any importer would be inconsistent with that ruling.

On that basis, the plaintiffs state that they no longer seek to defend the nationwide scope of the injunction previously entered by the CIT. At the same time, their renewed motion does not expressly limit the requested relief to the named plaintiffs, particularly when it comes to refund-related orders and the design of administrative processes that may ultimately be applied far more broadly. That tension between CASA's disfavor of universal injunctions and the inherently system-wide nature of refund procedures is likely to be a key issue as the CIT revisits the scope of its remedial authority.

Where Things Stand Now and What Comes Next

Procedurally, the plaintiffs filed their CIT motion for injunctive relief the same day they asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to issue its mandate immediately in the IEEPA case. The Federal Circuit's mandate is needed to fully return jurisdiction to the CIT so that the three-judge panel can implement the Supreme Court's decision and resolve the remedial issues, including refunds. The plaintiffs explicitly urge the CIT to be prepared to rule on the injunction motion as soon as the Federal Circuit issues the mandate.

On the ground, CBP has already stopped collecting IEEPA tariffs in response to the administration's direction following the Supreme Court's ruling, so the fight at this stage is not about whether duties will continue to be collected, but about whether and how past collections will be unwound. The plaintiffs' motion places significant pressure on the administration to move quickly, to honor its prior promises about the availability of refunds with interest, and to do so in a manner that is transparent, consistent, and efficient for the trade community.

For importers, the critical takeaway is that the merits battle over IEEPA tariffs is over, but the remedial phase, particularly refunds, is just beginning. The CIT's handling of the V.O.S. motion, and any subsequent consolidation of related cases, will likely drive the design of refund mechanisms and clarify which importers will need to take affirmative litigation steps versus those who may be able to rely on generally applicable administrative processes. Until the Federal Circuit acts on the mandate and the CIT rules on this motion, there will remain uncertainty on timing, documentation requirements, and whether non-party importers will receive relief automatically or will need to file or join litigation to protect their interests.

2/26/26 — CAFC Orders U.S. to Respond on Immediate Mandate in IEEPA Tariff Cases

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 25 ordered the government to respond by February 27 to a motion seeking immediate issuance of the mandates in the lead IEEPA tariff appeals, including V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, Fed. Cir. No. 25-1812.

The importers filed their motion on February 24, arguing that a swift mandate is needed to begin the refund process at the Court of International Trade following the Supreme Court's decision that IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs at issue. More than 900 suits are currently pending before the CIT.

At the same time, the plaintiffs filed a motion at the CIT for a permanent injunction against continued collection of IEEPA tariffs and an order compelling the government to begin the administrative refund process.

The CAFC's order is narrow -- it simply directs the government to state whether it consents to or opposes immediate issuance of the mandate. But the order underscores the courts' awareness that substantial refunds and ongoing tariff collections are at stake.

If the CAFC grants the motion, the mandate would clear the way for the CIT to move more quickly on permanent injunctive and refund relief. If not, the timing of any refunds may remain tied to further appellate proceedings.

For importers with significant exposure to IEEPA duties, monitoring both the CAFC docket and the CIT injunction proceedings will be critical in planning refund strategy and managing ongoing entries.

2/24/26 — VOS Plaintiffs Move for Mandate in CAFC; Customs Confirms 10% Worldwide Tariffs

Two significant developments occurred today in the IEEPA tariff space.

VOS Motion for Mandate at the CAFC

The plaintiffs in VOS (Vos International, et al.) filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting a mandate of the case back to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The purpose of the motion is to obtain a judgment from the CIT based on the Supreme Court's ruling that IEEPA tariffs are unconstitutional. A mandate from the CAFC would allow the CIT to enter a final judgment, which is a critical step toward obtaining refunds for importers who paid IEEPA tariffs.

Customs Issues CSMS Confirming 10% Worldwide Tariffs

Also today, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS) notice confirming the implementation of new worldwide tariffs at 10% under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. These tariffs were imposed by presidential proclamation following the Supreme Court's decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs, and took effect today, February 24, 2026. Importers should review their entries and consult with trade counsel regarding the impact of these new duties on their supply chains.

2/23/26 — Companies File Protective Lawsuits to Preserve IEEPA Tariff Refund Rights

Following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, which struck down IEEPA tariffs as unconstitutional, a wave of companies have filed protective lawsuits at the U.S. Court of International Trade to preserve their refund rights.

FedEx became the first major corporation to file a post-ruling refund lawsuit, seeking a full refund of all IEEPA duties through the CIT. L'Oreal, Dyson, and Bausch + Lomb have also filed suit. They join over 1,500 companies -- including Costco, Revlon, and Goodyear -- that have already filed protective lawsuits at the trade court.

The ruling has left unresolved the fate of an estimated $175 billion in tariff revenue collected by the government since February 2025. Companies and importers should consider filing protective actions promptly to ensure their refund rights are preserved, particularly as the statute of limitations and liquidation deadlines may affect eligibility.

2/23/26 — Senate Democrats Introduce Legislation to Force Rapid IEEPA Tariff Refunds

On February 23, 2026, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR), along with Senators Edward Markey (D-MA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), introduced the Tariff Refund Act of 2026 -- legislation that would require U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund all IEEPA tariffs within 180 days of enactment, following the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump striking down those tariffs as unlawful.

The bill was co-sponsored by 19 additional Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. It would require CBP to pay interest on all refunded amounts and to prioritize small businesses in the refund process. CBP would also be required to coordinate with the Small Business Administration to provide guidance and technical support to small importers navigating the refund process.

Importantly, the bill appears to cover all IEEPA tariffs, including those on entries that have already been finalized and closed ("liquidated") by CBP. The Supreme Court's ruling did not explicitly order refunds, leaving open significant questions about timing and process. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged the uncertainty, noting that the Administration would follow court guidance but that refunds could take weeks or months to sort out. President Trump, speaking unkindly of the Supreme Court decision, lamented last Friday that years of additional litigation might be required.

The bill would also impose transparency requirements, directing CBP to report to Congress every 30 days on the status of refunds until all payments are complete. The legislation further expressed the sense of Congress that importers, wholesalers, and large corporations should pass such refunds onward to their customers.

The Tariff Refund Act of 2026 faces an uncertain path in a Republican-controlled Senate; however, its introduction signals that Congress is actively monitoring the refund process, and creates political pressure on the Administration to establish a clear, accessible refund mechanism.

Importers with IEEPA tariff exposure should not wait for legislation to pass before taking protective legal action, as protest deadlines and liquidation timelines continue to run regardless of the legislative outlook.

2/21/26 — Claiming IEEPA Tariff Refunds

Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026), importers who paid IEEPA tariffs starting may soon become entitled to tariff refunds.

The following does not constitute legal advice, but is rather our attempt to provide information to importers in the trade.

One important legal issue is that recovery of IEEPA tariffs when entries undergo liquidation prior to a court refund order creates a situation likely to require affirmative legal actions of the importer. The headings below answer a few basic questions about this concern:

What is "Liquidation" and Why is it Important?

When an entry declaration and tariffs (CF 7501 Entry Summary) are filed to U.S. Customs, that is a tentative declaration and deposit subject to amendment, either by the importer (via a Post-Summary Correction (PSC), or by Customs (e.g., via a rate advance). The period of amendment is lengthy (approximately 314 days).

Eventually, this period for amendment ends, and these entry summaries become legally final. "Liquidation" is this legal event of finalization which is undertaken by U.S. Customs. Liquidation is an event provided for by statutory law, and which is described by the Customs Regulations at 19 C.F.R. 159.1 as "the final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries."

Given the Supreme Court decision, the district court will eventually have to issue an order to U.S. Customs requiring the liquidation of IEEPA entries for the plaintiffs with refunds. Hence, the law on IEEPA Tariffs will become settled, and Customs will then be required to liquidate IEEPA entries with refunds automatically.

Unfortunately, some entries will have already liquidated adversely to the importer (without refunds), and in the time between now and the finalization of the litigation, more entries are likely to liquidate (absent injunctions or suspensions of liquidation). Once an entry liquidates without a refund, the assessments are final, and are typically no longer "refundable" by U.S. Customs absent the importer making specific legal claims via specific statutory mechanisms. These steps include either filing timely administrative protests pursuant to 19 USC 1514 (assuming a protestable issue exists), or filing a litigation claim (assuming there is jurisdiction to support the lawsuit).

The steps below will help outline the actions importers should consider in relation to this problem of adversely liquidated IEEPA entries:

What are the benefits of litigation?

Litigation under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) offers importers several key advantages in recovering IEEPA tariff payments. First, it can prevent the liquidation of entries, preserving your right to a full refund before Customs finalizes your duties. Second, a court order can compel U.S. Customs to reliquidate entries that have already been liquidated, enabling recovery of tariff deposits that might otherwise be lost. Third, litigation provides a direct legal mechanism to challenge the validity of IEEPA-based tariffs on your specific entries, rather than relying solely on the administrative protest process. Finally, joining or initiating litigation creates a formal legal record and timeline that protects your refund rights against statutory deadlines.

Step 1: Verify Your Imports Were Subject to IEEPA Tariffs

Not all tariffs imposed during 2025-2026 were IEEPA tariffs. Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods, and safeguard tariffs under other statutes remain in effect and were not affected by the Supreme Court's ruling. The Court's decision covers only tariffs imposed under IEEPA executive orders, including the April 2025 "reciprocal" tariffs and the initial tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China that cited immigration and fentanyl emergencies. Review your entry documentation and CBP liquidation notices to confirm which tariffs apply to your imports.

Step 2: Develop Your Legal Strategy

The refund process for IEEPA tariffs can be legally complex, and the right strategy will depend on the size of your exposure, the status of your entries, and how quickly you act. Importers should consult with experienced trade counsel as early as possible to map out the approach that best fits their situation.

Key questions to address with counsel include: whether your entries are already liquidated or still pending liquidation; what the total dollar value of your IEEPA tariff exposure is across all entries; whether the scale of your potential refund justifies the cost of litigation under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i); and whether any of your 180-day protest deadlines are approaching. Each of these factors will drive the timing and structure of your refund strategy.

Importers with large tariff exposure across many entries should strongly consider a combined approach: filing a 1581(i) lawsuit now to protect their rights, while simultaneously preparing protests as a backstop. Importers with smaller exposure may find that the administrative protest route alone is sufficient. Either way, the time to act is now as delays in retaining counsel and assessing a situation could translate directly into lost refund opportunities.

Step 3: Get on ACE and Begin Tracking ACH Refunds

ACE is CBP's web-based trade portal that gives importers real-time access to their entry history, duty payment records, and compliance data. It is the system through which CBP will process and track IEEPA tariff refunds. Importers who are registered in CBP's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) should log in now and review their entry history to identify all entries and to quantify IEEPA tariffs.

CBP now processes duty refunds exclusively through ACE Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) payments. If an importer is not already enrolled in ACE and connected with an ACH bank account, then it is important to establish such access immediately. Tariff refunds will not be issued via mailed checks. Further, ACE is an important tool in confirming entry data, and in ensuring the importer is able to undertake appropriate timely legal responses when entries liquidate.

Importers who do not yet have an ACE account should apply now through the ACE Secure Data Portal Application on CBP's website.

Step 4: Consider Litigation Under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) - Act Quickly

Importers with significant IEEPA tariff exposure should immediately consult trade counsel about filing an action in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i), the court's residual jurisdiction provision.

For a short period, it may still be possible to file a lawsuit under the same jurisdictional provision (1581(i)) as the plaintiffs used in the Supreme Court litigation case. Already, several thousand importers have filed such litigation claims, and many more are expected to file.

These 1581(i) litigation cases are beneficial because once an importer files, it holds a legal certainty that it has protected its legal standing to secure (in due course) refunds against all of its IEEPA tariff imports. The CIT has already indicated its intent to utilize its equitable powers to require CBP to reliquidate entries with tariff refunds. Other benefits include the potential that litigants may have staked an early place in line for refunds (Customs estimates there are approximately 300,000 importers who will be seeking refunds against over $175 Billion in total tariff revenues; hence, there is a potential for delays).

This window to file a litigation case will not remain open for long however; once the legal issue in the lead case, VOS Selections v United States, becomes settled law and subject to protests filed with U.S Customs, then this specific jurisdictional avenue will be legally foreclosed. Importers considering the litigation option under 1581(i) should act promptly, as of this writing (February 23) the window of opportunity might be measured in days or weeks, not months.

Step 5: Gather Your Entry Data and Prepare to File a Protest

Even if an importer pursues litigation under 1581(i), we recommend simultaneously beginning to gather the documentation needed to file a protest under authority of Title 19 U.S.C. 1514.

An administrative protest is the standard mechanism for challenging an erroneous duty assessment, and it will likely be the primary refund pathway for most importers seeking refunds against entries that liquidate without refunds.

Administrative protests are subject to strict filing rules. A protest cannot be filed prior to liquidation, and it is due within 180 days after such liquidation. This 180-day deadline is fixed and strictly enforced. Customs does not have the statutory authority to process a late-filed protest. Hence, if an importer misses a protest deadline (and did not previously file a timely 1581(i) litigation case), it will lose the legal right to contest that particular entry liquidation.

An adequate protest must list the individual entries which were subject to IEEPA tariffs. Traditionally, protests are filed with an attached "Schedule A" which lists all such entry numbers, entry dates, ports of entry, and the amount of tariff refunds sought for each entry. (Again, this data can be obtained from within the ACE system via reporting functions.)

In addition to these electronic schedules, importers may also wish to obtain and preserve their entry records, including all entry declarations (Form 7501, Entry Summary), commercial invoices, and other supporting materials, such as bills of lading, etc. The CF 7501s will show the IEEPA duties assessed and the commercial invoices are the records establishing the basis for those declarations.