3/24/26 — Early Liquidation Risk Across Entry Types
While most online discussions of IEEPA claims envision a roughly 314-day liquidation period typical of Type 01 consumption entries.
It’s important to however to recognize that there are 49 usable entry types and that there is operational variance as to liquidation cycles for each. CBP runs liquidation cycles on shorter timelines for some entry types simply because those are operationally cleaner and see fewer adjustments. These include as examples:
Type 11 (Informal Entries): May liquidate within 30 days.
Type 31 (Warehouse Withdrawals): Commonly finalize within 60–180 days of withdrawal.
Type 06 (FTZ Consumption Entries): Usually liquidate about 90–210 days after withdrawal.
That compressed timing collapsed the protest window for some of those entries before legal challenges to the tariffs were addressed by the Supreme Court (on February 20, 2026).
For example, a warehouse withdrawal may have occurred on March 1, 2025 with a corresponding liquidation on May 30, 2025, roughly 90 days later. The protest period would have expired on November 26, 2025. Since the Court’s ruling came after that date, the importer’s entry would have already reached final liquidation under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, with CBP’s reliquidation authority under § 1501 long expired. However, during this period, the issue was still considered “non-protestible” as a Constitutional challenge to the tariffs (i.e., an issue that Customs at the time was unable to approve via an adminstrative protest).
Importers in this position are now evaluating alternative legal theories, including:
Bringing litigation under the residual jurisdiction clause of the Court (28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)) as a litigation claim (these are time sensitive claims);
Equitable tolling, arguing the protest clock should begin once the IEEA tariff’s are legally invalidated; and
Challenges to liquidation finality, potentially asserting that liquidation based on an unlawful tariff may lack binding effect.
Each approach depends on legal theories (rather that clear settled procedure) and collectively represent an emerging next phase of IEEPA refund recovery.
In sum, Early liquidation is routine for many types of entries including informal entries, warehouse entries, and FTZ entries; thus, Importers should:
Review entry data to identify which transactions may have liquidated early.
Consider protective protests, even if protestability and/or timeliness are uncertain issues.
Consult counsel early to time-sensitive litigation claims under § 1581(i).
3/20/26 — CIT Expands IEEPA Refund Order to Cover Brazil and India Tariffs
Judge Eaton has now formally expanded his nationwide IEEPA refund order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Ct. No. 26-01259 (Ct. Int'l Trade Mar. 20, 2026), to cover IEEPA tariffs imposed on Brazil and India, while simultaneously continuing the suspension of immediate compliance as CBP builds an administrative refund mechanism. CBP must report back to the court on March 31, 2026.
What the March 20 Order Does
The CIT issued a further amended order in Atmus Filtration making clear that the March 5 refund order applies to all unliquidated entries subject to IEEPA duties, including those imposed on imports from Brazil and India -- not just the reciprocal and IEEPA tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China that were directly at issue in the Supreme Court's Learning Resources decision. The order now directs CBP to liquidate unliquidated entries and reliquidate non-final liquidated entries without regard to the IEEPA duties. The order does not address de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321, which remains the subject of separate litigation.
Even as he broadened the coverage of refunds, Judge Eaton kept in place the suspension of the March 5 order to the extent it requires immediate compliance. CBP is not yet required to begin issuing IEEPA refunds as it continues to work on the programming required for the new refunds module, called CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries).
March 31 Status Report
The order requires the government to file a further report March 31, 2026 that further describes progress toward completing that CAPE module, followed by a settlement conference that same day.
What This Means
For importers that paid IEEPA duties on Canada, Mexico, China, Brazil, India, or other affected countries, the CIT has now made explicit that unliquidated and non-final liquidated entries are to be liquidated or reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties.
CBP is currently being required to refund those duties plus interest once the refund process is operational.
However, court has not yet resolved how to handle entries where liquidation has become final, and therefore importers are directed to protest remedies under 19 U.S.C. 1514 to preserve rights for those entries. This order does not attempt to resolve the nuanced legal issue of exactly when such entries become “protestable” in light of the current open court proceedings; or what might happen if the Administration files an appeal to the CIT Order.
Importers should work closely with counsel to protect all legal avenues to seek refunds, meet deadlines, and prepare documentation for CBP's forthcoming CAPE-based refund process.
The March 20 order is available here: 2026 CIT Further Amended Order (PDF)
3/20/26 — Trump Refund Rhetoric
Today, March 19th, the President took a moment to complain against the IEEPA tariff refunds which he stated will approximate $500 billion (a massive overstatement considering CBPs $166 billion quantification). For those waiting for refunds, this hostile rhetoric is concerning.
Since February 20th, Treasury Secretary Bessent’s has spoken out against tariff refunds as being the “ultimate corporate welfare” and a “corporate boondoggle,” because (in his belief) importers largely raised prices or captured supplier discounts, such that tariff refunds now merely amount to a “windfall.” To drive this home, Bessenet questions whether importers will pass refunds back to U.S. consumers; hence arguing that tariff refunds do not help U.S. households, but merely enrich big companies that have already recouped those costs.
Immediately after the SCOTUS ruling on February 20th, President Trump himself had this blunt exchange with a reporter:
Reporter: “Since Liberation Day, there's about 175 billion in tariff revenue that is now in limbo. Do you have to refund 175 billion?”
Trump: “Think of it, Peter. Very fair question. They take months and months to write an opinion and they don't even discuss that point. We've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so I said, ‘Well, what happens to all the money that we took in?’ It wasn't discussed. Wouldn't you think they would've put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don't keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”
Trump: “So they write this terrible defective decision, totally defective. It's almost like not written by smart people. And what they do? They don't even talk about that. Your question is very basic. That was the first question I asked also to make you feel good. And you say, ‘What about all the money that we've taken in?’ Sir, they don't discuss that. How crazy is that?”
Follow‑up:
Reporter: “What you're saying is, are you saying that you don't plan to honor refunds for companies that file for them?”
Trump: “I just told you the answer. Right? I told you the answer. It's not discussed. We'll end up being in court for the next five years.”
Taking the President at his Word, Refund Lawsuits Have Surged
The President's comments come as the pace of tariff refund litigation continues to accelerate with importers concerned that the Administration may file an appeal against the refund order. According to Bloomberg News, nearly 1,000 new refund cases have been filed at the Court of International Trade since March 1 alone, bringing the total to well over 3,000 lawsuits. The surge suggests that the trade community is not treating CBP's 45-day implementation timeline as a reason to stand down from litigation.
The idea is instead that importers with significant IEEPA exposure should continue to pursue all legal strategies: monitoring liquidations, filing timely protests under 19 U.S.C. 1514 where entries have liquidated, and pursuing early protective litigation at the CIT to preserve rights in the event the administrative process proves insufficient, complex, or delayed due to an appeal.
3/19/26 — Why the Supreme Court’s Mandate Is Potentially Important for IEEPA Refund Strategy
As CBP moves ahead with a CAPE-based portal to process IEEPA tariff refunds, the next potentially important legal development for importers is the Supreme Court's mandate. CBP has indicated to the Court of International Trade (CIT) that it needs roughly 45 days to stand up refund processing and has begun designing a system to handle refunds at scale, but that implementation work could be interrupted if President Trump directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to appeal the CIT's refund order. The President has publicly suggested that resolving the IEEPA refund issue could take "two years" of additional litigation, while neither he nor DOJ has confirmed whether an appeal will be filed. At the same time, President Trump and Director Bessenet have characterized the refunds as "corporate welfare" and "enrichment," signaling political pressure to resist large-dollar corporate refunds, not speed them along. If the White House does instruct DOJ to appeal, CBP will in practical terms have little choice but to pause rollout of any refund portal while the case is docketed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), briefed on an expedited schedule, argued, and decided, followed by a 90-day window to seek Supreme Court review that runs into the Court's mid-summer recess and October return.
How the Mandate Could Affect "Finality" and Remedy Choice
At the same time, the Supreme Court's rehearing period has now closed, which means the Court's mandate can issue at any time. Some observers expect that mandate as early as March 24, 2026, but the key point is that it is now an "any day" event rather than a distant procedural step. Once the mandate issues and is transmitted to the lower courts, it will sharpen the question of whether the VOS Selections litigation is sufficiently final to cut off so-called "piggyback" IEEPA refund suits by non-party importers at the CIT. If courts treat the mandate as closing out the VOS litigation for purposes of residual jurisdiction, then importer lawsuits filed after that date could be found untimely, leaving the administrative protest procedure under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 and 19 C.F.R. pt. 174 as the primary mechanism for securing IEEPA refunds. In that scenario, importers who have not filed litigation might need to rely on protests filed within 180 days of liquidation, and failure to protest liquidated entries could foreclose both refunds and judicial review (even if CBP's refund portal is operational and even if court appeals are still pending in the background).
Why the Mandate Creates Strategic Uncertainty
There is also a plausible alternative: courts could conclude that the Supreme Court's mandate does not eliminate residual jurisdiction for related piggyback suits, leaving litigation at the CIT available alongside protests. In that world, some liquidated entries might not yet be treated as "protestable," or courts might view litigation as the proper vehicle for enforcing rights under the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling for particular categories of entries or importers. The difficulty is timing and risk allocation. If the Trump Administration directs DOJ to appeal the CIT's refund order, protest clocks for liquidated entries will begin to run and expire (some as early as this summer) well before the CAFC, and possibly the Supreme Court again, bring true finality to the IEEPA litigation. That leaves importers facing real downside if they pick only one path: those who rely exclusively on litigation may later be told that their claims belonged in protests, while those who rely exclusively on protests may be told that their claims should have been brought as piggyback suits that are now jurisdictionally barred.
A Cautious Approach in a Fluid Environment
Against this backdrop, the forthcoming Supreme Court mandate is potentially important because it may convert today's flexible, overlapping remedial options into a tighter set of jurisdictional deadlines that differ depending on whether protests or litigation are deemed the correct mechanism. It will either push importers more firmly into the protest track, with strict 180-day post-liquidation timelines, or leave room for a dual pathway in which litigation at the CIT remains viable after the mandate. Combined with the unresolved possibility of a Trump-directed appeal, the 90-day certiorari window, and CBP's not-yet-live CAPE refund portal, this uncertainty makes it risky for importers seeking substantial IEEPA refunds to rely on a single remedy. For now, we view the conservative course as "covering all bases": where appropriate, filing targeted protective suits in the CIT while also monitoring liquidations closely and submitting timely protests within 180 days under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, so that importers preserve their rights regardless of how the courts ultimately interpret the effect of the Supreme Court's mandate.
3/17/26 — SCOTUS Mandate Likely to Issue in the Near Future
The Department of Justice has allowed the March 17, 2026 deadline under Supreme Court Rule 44 to pass without filing a petition for rehearing in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. This means the Supreme Court's landmark decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs will stand without further challenge at the highest court.
With judgment entered on February 20, 2026, and no rehearing petition filed by the Rule 44 deadline, the default mandate date is 32 days after judgment—March 24, 2026—unless the Court directs issuance "forthwith" or otherwise alters that schedule.
When the mandate issues, it formally returns jurisdiction to the lower courts and sets the legal machinery in motion for enforcing the Court's ruling. It may also heighten uncertainty around the unresolved question of when IEEPA tariffs become "protestable" and whether such protestability could foreclose the option of immediate litigation under the court's residual jurisdictional clause at 28 U.S.C. section 1581(i).
For this reason, many law firms have been urging clients to consider filing litigation sooner rather than later.
3/13/26 — CBP Building New CAPE System to Process IEEPA Tariff Refunds at Scale
CBP has now confirmed that it is racing to build a new four-part automated system, known as CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries), inside the ACE platform to handle refunds of the now-invalidated IEEPA tariffs.
In a court-ordered status report to the Court of International Trade, CBP said CAPE’s “mass processing” engine is only about 40% complete, while its review component is roughly 80% built, and suggested the system could be technically operational as early as mid-to-late April. CAPE is designed to let importers upload declarations through ACE listing affected entries, after which CBP will validate the data, recalculate duties, and route electronic refunds with interest through Treasury’s existing payment rails.
CAPE will rely on ACE-based file uploads rather than ABI, with CBP using the system to run automated checks on each claim, strip out the IEEPA tariff lines, rerun the duty calculations, and then schedule refunds on a rolling basis. CBP has emphasized that this will be a multi-year operational effort—tens of millions of entries, hundreds of thousands of importers.
3/12/26 — Section 122 Tariffs Now Under Legal Challenge at the CIT
Within weeks of the President's February 20 proclamation imposing a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, two separate lawsuits have been filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the legality of those tariffs.
The first suit, Oregon v. Trump, was filed on March 5, 2026 by a coalition of twenty-four states (including twenty-two state attorneys general and the Democratic governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania). The second, Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. Trump (Court No. 1:26-cv-01606), was filed on March 9, 2026 by two private companies represented by the Liberty Justice Center, the same organization that won the Supreme Court's landmark IEEPA ruling in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump earlier this year.
Both cases have been assigned to a three-judge panel consisting of Chief Judge Mark A. Barnett, Judge Claire R. Kelly, and Senior Judge Timothy C. Stanceu.
The Legal Arguments
Both lawsuits challenge the Section 122 tariffs on overlapping but distinct grounds.
It is also worth noting that the states' complaint points out that Section 122 "has never been used to impose tariffs" and "has never been used in any way at all" since its enactment in 1974. The reason is that the statute was designed to address short-term balance of payments crises under the fixed exchange rate system that prevailed before 1976. Under the floating exchange rate system the United States has used for the last fifty years, the exchange rate adjusts automatically, which means the type of crisis Congress had in mind when it enacted Section 122 arguably cannot arise in the modern monetary system.
The Nondiscrimination Argument
Both lawsuits also argue that the tariffs violate Section 122's requirement that import restrictions be "applied consistently with the principle of nondiscriminatory treatment" and be "of broad and uniform application with respect to product coverage." The proclamation, however, exempts many goods from Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, and includes more than 80 pages of product-specific exceptions. The plaintiffs argue that these carve-outs are inconsistent with the statute's uniformity requirement.
The Constitutional Arguments
The Burlap and Barrel complaint adds a constitutional dimension, arguing that reading Section 122 as broad enough to authorize the tariffs the President has imposed would violate both the major questions doctrine and the nondelegation doctrine. The major questions doctrine (which played a significant role in the Supreme Court's IEEPA decision) requires Congress to "speak clearly" when granting sweeping economic authority. The nondelegation argument is that if Section 122 were interpreted as broadly as the Administration reads it, the statute would constitute an unconstitutional "sweeping delegation of legislative power" without an intelligible principle to guide the President's discretion.
Expected Timeline
If the Section 122 litigation proceeds at the same pace as the IEEPA challenges, oral arguments could occur in mid-April, with a CIT decision around the beginning of May. A Federal Circuit appeal could follow, with arguments around early July and a decision by late July. However, commentators have noted that the 150-day statutory period for Section 122 tariffs expires on July 24, 2026, which could affect the urgency and pace of the litigation. Once the tariffs expire, the courts may have less incentive to expedite proceedings on the question of prospective relief, though the refund question would remain live.
It is unclear whether the plaintiffs will seek a preliminary injunction to halt the tariffs before a merits decision is reached.
This is an informational site maintained by Nakachi Eckhardt & Jacobson, P.C., a trade law firm specializing in customs and international trade matters. If you need legal assistance evaluating your tariff exposure or refund strategy, please contact the firm directly at www.tradelawcounsel.com.
3/11/26 — Five Days of Silence: Will the Administration Appeal the IEEPA Refund Order?
It has now been five days since the March 6 status conference before Judge Eaton at the Court of International Trade, and the Trump Administration has offered no public indication of whether it plans to appeal the court's order directing CBP to refund all IEEPA tariffs, or whether it will seek rehearing at the Supreme Court.
The silence is striking given President Trump's own public statements on the matter. Trump has indicated he is prepared to litigate the IEEPA tariff issue "for years" if necessary, and has specifically expressed his desire for a rehearing before the Supreme Court following the Court's ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that struck down the tariffs. These comments suggest the Administration has not accepted the finality of the Supreme Court's decision, even as CBP works to comply with Judge Eaton's refund order.
The stakes for importers could not be higher. If the Administration were to file an appeal of Judge Eaton's order to the Federal Circuit, or seek rehearing at the Supreme Court, it could potentially derail the entire refund process that CBP is currently building. An appeal could result in a stay of the refund order, freezing the 45-day timeline CBP laid out in its March 6 declaration.
Perhaps most critically, any significant delay caused by an appeal would risk pushing liquidated entries past their protest deadlines. Under customs law, importers generally have 180 days from the date of liquidation to file a protest. If the refund process is stalled by litigation while the clock continues to run on those deadlines, importers who have not already taken protective action could lose their right to recover duties that were collected unlawfully.
Importers who have not yet filed a protective action at the CIT or a protest with CBP should seriously consider doing so now, rather than waiting for the Administration to reveal its hand.
3/10/26 — No Refunds Have Been Issued, But Consumer Class Actions Are Already Here
The Cases Filed So Far
The Legal Theory
The plaintiffs' theory is that companies which collected tariff costs from consumers, whether as explicit line-item surcharges or as general price increases, will be unjustly enriched if they receive tariff refunds from CBP while retaining the revenue they collected from their customers.
These lawsuits were triggered by the Supreme Court's February 20, 2026 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, effectively invalidating the entire IEEPA tariff program. It is worth noting that as of this writing, no refunds have actually been issued to any importer by CBP, and the CIT's refund process remains under development. The suits have nonetheless been filed preemptively, targeting companies based on what they collected from consumers rather than on what they have received back from the government.
At least five putative consumer class actions have been filed in federal district courts in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, New York, and Tennessee. The defendants fall into two broad categories.
Logistics Companies That Charged Explicit Tariff Surcharges
In Reiser v. Federal Express Corporation (S.D. Fla., No. 1:26-cv-21328, filed Feb. 27, 2026), FedEx is accused of billing consumers directly for "duties, taxes, and fees" that it paid to CBP as customs broker and importer of record. The named plaintiff was charged $36 for a single pair of tennis shoes shipped from Germany ($21 in IEEPA duties and $15 in ancillary brokerage and clearance fees) on goods that would have entered entirely duty free under the applicable Column 1-General rate. The complaint asserts claims for declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. Notably, while FedEx has publicly stated it plans to return refund proceeds to customers, the complaint argues the company has made no legally binding commitment to do so.
In Anastopoulo v. United Parcel Service Inc. (N.D. Ga., No. 1:26-cv-01005, filed Feb. 20, 2026), filed on the same day as the Supreme Court's decision, the complaint alleges UPS wrongfully collected tariff charges from consumers and increased overall shipping costs based on "now-invalid" IEEPA tariffs. The suit asserts breach of contract claims and seeks to cover all U.S. residents who paid tariffs to UPS under IEEPA.
Consumer Brands That Embedded Tariff Costs in Retail Prices
In Ward v. EssilorLuxottica (E.D.N.Y., No. 26-cv-1133, filed Feb. 26, 2026), the parent company of Ray-Ban, Oakley, Oliver Peoples, and Persol is accused of raising prices across its U.S. product lines in response to IEEPA tariffs. The named plaintiff purchased Ray-Ban sunglasses from ray-ban.com in August 2025. The complaint alleges that certain Ray-Ban prices held steady from September 2024 through March 2025, then rose from $287 to $304 between March and May 2025, a period corresponding to the implementation of IEEPA tariffs. The suit asserts claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received, and deceptive trade practices violations under Ohio and New York statutes.
The complaint contrasts EssilorLuxottica's silence on whether it will pass refunds through to consumers with FedEx's public statements that it intends to do so, framing the silence as evidence of intent to retain a windfall.
Why This Matters for Importers
These cases are currently directed at logistics companies and major consumer brands. However, the legal theories are broad. As the law firm Covington & Burling noted in a March 2026 alert, the theories advanced in these cases could extend to any company that imposed itemized IEEPA tariff surcharges, increased prices in response to IEEPA tariffs, publicly attributed price increases to tariffs in earnings calls or press releases, filed or intends to file refund actions in the Court of International Trade, or has not addressed how consumer-level IEEPA tariff charges would be treated if refunds are received.
There is also the possibility that shareholder derivative suits could seek to force a company's board to pursue IEEPA refunds from CBP, creating litigation pressure from a different direction entirely.
Potential Defenses
These lawsuits are in their early stages, and legal commentators have identified several potential defenses.
The most obvious issue is ripeness. No IEEPA refunds have been issued yet. The question of whether a company will be "unjustly enriched" is arguably premature when no enrichment has occurred; EssilorLuxottica, for instance, has not announced that it will not issue consumer refunds, but rather has simply not announced anything, because there are no refunds to pass through.
There are also contract-based defenses. Retail purchases are governed by a contract at a specific price. The tariffs were lawful when assessed and collected at the time of the consumer's transaction. The argument that a later judicial ruling retroactively entitles consumers to a partial refund from the retailer (rather than from the government) is untested.
Unjust enrichment claims may also be vulnerable where tariff charges were fully disclosed and paid voluntarily, or where plaintiffs rely on generalized price inflation theories without alleging that a specific tariff surcharge was assessed.
Finally, many companies' terms of use contain arbitration provisions and class action waivers that could narrow or eliminate class-wide exposure.
What Companies Should Consider Now
Companies that paid IEEPA tariffs and passed those costs through to customers, whether explicitly or through general price increases, should evaluate their exposure now, before the next wave of filings arrives.
In particular, companies should be reviewing public statements, earnings calls, and press releases for language attributing price increases to tariffs, as plaintiffs are mining these for evidence. Companies should also assess whether a proactive consumer refund commitment is appropriate, evaluate arbitration clauses and class action waivers in their customer agreements, and coordinate their tariff refund strategy with the risk of downstream consumer litigation.
This is an informational site maintained by Nakachi Eckhardt & Jacobson, P.C., a trade law firm specializing in customs and international trade matters. If you need legal assistance evaluating your IEEPA tariff refund strategy or your exposure to consumer class actions, please contact the firm directly at www.tradelawcounsel.com.
3/6/26 — CIT Hearing Update: CBP Says It Needs 45 Days to Process IEEPA Tariff Refunds
At a closed-door status conference on March 6, 2026, before Senior Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice reported on the government's progress toward complying with Judge Eaton's March 4 order directing CBP to begin processing IEEPA tariff refunds for all affected importers.
CBP submitted a declaration from Brandon Lord, Executive Director of Trade Programs, explaining that the agency's existing technology and procedures are not equipped to handle refunds on such a massive scale. The declaration outlined a proposed new administrative process that would use the ACE system to automatically recalculate duties, verify importer information, and issue refunds electronically through the Treasury Department. CBP stated this new system would require minimal action from importers but would need 45 days to become operational.
After considering the declaration, Judge Eaton suspended the immediate compliance requirement from his March 4 order, giving CBP additional time to implement the proposed refund process. However, he also ordered CBP to file a progress report with the court by 2:00 PM EST on March 12, 2026, making clear the court intends to closely monitor the agency's efforts.
This development is significant for importers because it signals that a streamlined, court-supervised refund process is taking shape. Importers should not need to file individual lawsuits to recover their IEEPA duties, though filing a protective action at the CIT remains advisable given the government's continued position that it may challenge aspects of the refund process.
Notably, the Trump Administration has remained silent on whether it intends to appeal Judge Eaton's order to the Federal Circuit. The absence of any stated position on appeal leaves importers in a state of uncertainty, even as CBP moves forward with building the refund infrastructure the court has demanded.
3/4/26 — CIT Orders Nationwide Removal of IEEPA Duties on Non-Final Entries
On March 4, 2026, Judge Richard K. Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade issued an order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States (Court No. 26-01259) directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to eliminate IEEPA duties from all entries that are not yet final. For unliquidated entries, CBP must liquidate them without regard to IEEPA duties. For liquidated entries where liquidation is not yet final, CBP must reliquidate them without regard to IEEPA duties. The court tied this nationwide refund obligation to the Supreme Court's holding in Learning Resources that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.
Importers and practitioners can read the full order here: Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Order (Ct. Int'l Trade Mar. 4, 2026), available at https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/judge-eaton-court-of-international-trade-ieepa-liquidation-process-ruling.pdf
The Administration now faces a choice. Option one: accept the CIT's order and instruct CBP to promptly liquidate and reliquidate all covered entries without IEEPA duties, allowing refunds and interest to begin flowing. Option two: move for a stay and pursue an appeal, which would likely introduce many additional months of uncertainty before importers see refunds.
Importers with entries subject to IEEPA duties should identify which entries remain unliquidated and which were liquidated less than six months ago, as those are the categories the order expressly reaches. If the government seeks a stay and appeals, refund timing will depend on further rulings from the CIT and the Federal Circuit.
3/3/26 — When Does an IEEPA Liquidation Become Protestable?
After the Supreme Court's IEEPA decision, there is no definitive answer as to when CBP's liquidation of IEEPA-duty entries stops being "ministerial", and becomes a “protestable decision" under 19 U.S.C. § 1514. Different trade lawyers have advanced at least four plausible cut-offs:
On the date of the Supreme Court decision – from that day forward, CBP might be viewed as choosing to apply a tariff that the Supreme Court has already rejected, such that later liquidations are non-ministerial and must be protested before litigation can be advanced into the judiciary under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a); one rebuttal, however, is that, although unlikely, the Court could still grant rehearing and issue a different decision, so CBP cannot yet be said to be definitively disregarding a final judicial mandate.
When the Federal Circuit issues its mandate to the CIT – the mandate could be treated as the practical moment when the lower court is formally empowered to apply the Supreme Court’s ruling (i.e., when a concrete legal effect manifests for the lower courts and, derivatively, CBP), but the same rehearing-period rebuttal applies here because the Federal Circuit may issue its mandate before the Supreme Court’s rehearing deadline has run, leaving some residual uncertainty as to the finality of the higher court’s disposition.
When the Supreme Court rehearing application period expires and/or rehearing is denied (if applied for) – the argument here is that once the time to seek rehearing has lapsed (or any rehearing petition is denied) then rehearing is effectively off the table and CBP is no longer in a posture of speculating about whether the Supreme Court’s decision will stand.
When the CIT enters a final judgment on remand and the 60-day appeal period runs (and assuming the Supreme Court has either denied rehearing or the rehearing period has expired) – only at that point has CBP been definitively told, through a fully final Article III judgment, that the executive’s tariff action is unlawful, such that liquidations before that moment may still be characterized as “ministerial” and within 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), while liquidations after that point become protestable “decisions” under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 requiring recourse to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a).
No court has yet provided clarity as to which of these options will apply in the IEEPA tariff litigation, so the timing remains an open legal question.
This is why practitioners have been recommending filing litigation claims early on. Nevertheless, given options 3 and 4, it is still not too late to file.
The answer matters because it determines an importer's available path to court. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, once a liquidation becomes a "protestable decision," the importer must use the protest-and-appeal route under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Until that point, the liquidation may still be considered "ministerial," and the importer can instead proceed under the residual jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). Because § 1581(i) is unavailable where jurisdiction under § 1581(a) is or could have been invoked, the timing of when a liquidation becomes "protestable" directly controls which jurisdictional path applies.
3/2/26 — Federal Circuit Orders Immediate Issuance of Mandate in IEEPA Tariff Case
On Monday, March 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the importers' motion for immediate issuance of the mandates in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Nos. 25-1812, 25-1813, and denied the government's cross-motion to stay the mandates. The en banc court dissolved the stay it had entered on August 29, 2025, and ordered the mandates to issue forthwith.
The order is a sharp rebuke of DOJ's position. Just three days earlier, the government had asked the court to wait for the Supreme Court to send down its judgment under Rule 45.3 and then hold the mandate for an additional 90 days to give the political branches time to "consider options." DOJ had characterized the importers' request as proceeding at "breakneck speed" and dismissed their interest in beginning refund proceedings as a desire to be the "center of attention" at the Court of International Trade. The full court disagreed, acting swiftly and unanimously (with Circuit Judge Newman not participating) to clear the path for refund litigation to begin.
With the mandates now issued, jurisdiction returns to the Court of International Trade, where proceedings on IEEPA tariff refunds can move forward. The government's separate request for a 120-day pause on refund litigation at the CIT (with plaintiffs' opposition due March 17, 2026) remains pending, but today's order significantly undercuts DOJ's delay strategy.
The CIT will now need to determine the scope of relief—including whether refunds extend only to the named plaintiffs or to the broader universe of importers who paid the unlawful duties. The plaintiffs have already filed a motion at the CIT seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the IEEPA tariffs and an order directing Customs and Border Protection to begin issuing refunds with interest.
Several critical questions remain for the CIT to resolve on remand. First, the Federal Circuit's original August 2025 decision vacated the CIT's universal injunction in light of the Supreme Court's guidance in Trump v. CASA, Inc. on the proper scope of injunctive relief. The CIT must now fashion new injunctive relief consistent with both the Supreme Court's merits ruling and its injunction jurisprudence. Second, the mechanics of refunding billions in tariff collections will require detailed administrative orders directed at CBP. Third, the government is likely to resist broad relief at every turn, as evidenced by its attempts to delay proceedings both at the Federal Circuit and now at the CIT.
For importers, today's order is a clear signal that the refund process is moving forward despite the government's resistance. Importers who paid IEEPA tariffs may wish to consider immediately filing a lawsuit, as the ability to file such a lawsuit could soon end.
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.