5/4/26 — CBP Launches Comprehensive IEEPA Refunds Page; CAPE Refund Payments Could Begin as Soon as May 11
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has rolled out a comprehensive webpage dedicated to IEEPA duty refunds, consolidating filing instructions, FAQs, CSMS messages, and program updates in a single location. CBP has indicated it will update the page regularly and is encouraging importers and customs brokers to monitor it for new guidance.
The page provides detailed information on the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) functionality in ACE, which CBP launched in phases to streamline IEEPA refund processing. CAPE is designed to consolidate refunds, including interest, rather than handle them entry-by-entry.
After Atmus Filtration, Inc. voluntarily dismissed its CIT case, Judge Eaton designated Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CIT No. 25-00595) as the new lead IEEPA refund case and reissued the refund order to that case.
Most notably, CBP reports that CAPE refunds are progressing on schedule, with actual payments expected to begin issuing as soon as May 11, 2026. Under CBP's stated timeline, valid refunds will generally be issued within 60 to 90 days after acceptance of a CAPE Declaration, with liquidated entries reliquidating the next business day after acceptance. Because Phase 1 opened on April 20, 2026, the earliest CAPE Declarations are now reaching the payment stage.
4/27/26 — No IEEPA Refunds Have Yet Been Issued, However, Consumer Class Actions Are Already Here
Two putative class actions are now pending against FedEx in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (where FedEx is headquartered) with the parties moving toward consolidating them into a single case.
Anastopoulo v. FedEx Corporation (W.D. Tenn. # 2:26-02334) was originally filed in South Carolina on February 20 and transferred to the Western District of Tennessee in late March. It alleges FedEx breached its shipping contracts by charging fees tied to unlawful IEEPA tariffs and then failing to refund those charges. Then Reiser v. Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Logistics (W.D. Tenn. # 2:26-02410) was filed shortly later, in Miami on February 27 and transferred to the same Tennessee court in early April. The Reiser case also alleges that FedEx billed customers for IEEPA duties while "merely facilitating" payment of those duties to CBP. Both complaints argue FedEx was unjustly enriched because it positioned itself as importer of record to keep all IEEPA refunds which were ultimately recovered from the government.
Chief Judge Sheryl Lipman has given FedEx until June 1 to respond and has stated that "no further extensions will be granted." The parties told the court that they "reasonably anticipate filing a motion to consolidate” and want to "realize the efficiencies of a single, centralized action." Similar potential exposures exists for other couriers, carriers, and brokers who may have acted as an importer of record on IEEPA shipments.
As class actions, these cases are built around consumers and small shippers who are unable to sustain individual litigation themselves. As such, class action attorneys tend to resolve such cases via settlements agreements which disproportionately benefit class counsel via fee awards, with individual class members typically seeing only minor recoveries. Parties with a larger individual claims can avoid having these rights adjudicated and settled within a class action, but doing so requires separately preserving a timely cause of action through in independent litigation action. With FedEx's response due June 1 and consolidation already in motion, the window to do so may be a narrow one.
4/21/26 — CAPE Phase One IEEPA Refunds Move Forward
CAPE Phase 1 is now live in ACE for IEEPA-related refund claims, and uptake has been strong, with more than 55,000 trade users logging in on the first day and refund requests covering over 4 million entries. CAPE declarations are subject to ACE file-level validations, and once a declaration is accepted and assigned a claim number, CBP will systematically remove the applicable IEEPA Chapter 99 provisions at the entry summary level and issue duty refunds with interest under 19 U.S.C. 1505 within roughly 60-90 days. CBP has clarified that customs brokers may only submit CAPE declarations for entries that they themselves filed, though a single broker declaration may cover multiple importers of record so long as all underlying entries were broker-filed by that same filer.
CAPE Phase 1 is only a partial solution that was create to respond as quickly as possible to a court order, and does not pretend to encompass all IEEPA-paid entries. According to CBP's deployment materials, Phase 1 entries does not cover many categories. For example, CAPE will reject entry summaries that are flagged for reconciliation, the subject of a pending protest, subject to drawback refunds, or subject to a court injunctions, as well as where the entry is within a final liquidation phase, in trade control, cancelled or rejected, or otherwise suspended (e.g., ADCVD entries) or under review.
On the April 21 webinar, CBP officials said there is currently no firm timetable for “Phase 2” of CAPE that would address these shortcomings. CBP also clarified that PSCs are not a pathway to initiate IEEPA refunds and must instead be used, if at all, before a CAPE claim—for example, to adjust a notify party.
In addition, the scope of Phase 1 involves only unliquidated entries and those entries which have liquidated within the last 80 days. Therefore, for entries that are rejected or are ineligible for CAPE Phase 1, importers would need to pursue other traditional remedies to preserve refund rights (rather than waiting for an indefinite Phase 2 release)— such as by filing a timely protest under 19 U.S.C. 1514 (due within 180 days of liquidation) or, where appropriate, by initiating litigation at the Court of International Trade.
4/13/26 — As CAPE Nears Completion, Polls Emerge on the Impact of Tariff Policy
With CBP's CAPE refund portal set to go live on April 20, two new surveys published this week offer a snapshot of how the business world is thinking about tariffs and the road ahead.
PwC surveyed 633 U.S. executives and found that 86% now treat tariffs as a permanent planning assumption — a sharp shift from just a few years ago, when most expected trade barriers to come and go with administrations. After bipartisan continuity on tariff policy across both the Biden and Trump presidencies, executives have largely stopped waiting for relief and have built duties into their operating models. Notably, 90% said their company is in a stronger position than two years ago, though PwC cautioned that most firms are pursuing similar strategies around AI, risk management, and supply chain diversification.
Separately, the CNBC CFO Council quarterly survey polled 25 CFOs at major U.S. companies on whether they expect to pass IEEPA refunds along to consumers. None said they would. Twelve plan to apply for refunds, six said they would not pass any portion downstream, and seven were undecided. Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi characterized the results as expected, noting that companies absorbed significant costs during the tariff period and view potential refunds as recovery of those losses.
As CAPE's first phase rolls out next week for straightforward entry types, importers should be organizing documentation and preparing to file. The broader policy environment — and these survey results — underscore why pursuing refunds promptly remains important.
4/10/26 — April 20 Launch: CBP's CAPE System Promises Consolidated IEEPA Refunds
CBP states that on April 20, it will launch the first phase of its new Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tool in ACE to handle IEEPA duty refunds.
CAPE is designed to replace the current entry‑by‑entry approach with consolidated refunds of IEEPA duties and interest by importer (or designated party) and liquidation date. Phase one of CAPE will be limited in scope to processing (1) unliquidated entries and (2) entries that liquidated within the past 80 days.
To use CAPE, the importer of record or authorized broker must have an ACE portal account, submit a CAPE Declaration in ACE, and ensure bank account information is on file for electronic refunds. After the CAPE Declaration is filed, CBP will remove the IEEPA HTS number, recalculate duties, create a new version of the entry, and then liquidate or reliquidate it, with CAPE consolidating the resulting refunds for payment.
For more detail, please review CBP's Bulletin announcement: PBRB #5517-0426.
See also, ACE CAPE instructions document.
4/7/26 — Atmus Filtration Dismisses Lead IEEPA Refund Suit
Importer Atmus Filtration has dismissed its case seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Until now, Atmus' case was treated as the lead lawsuit on the provision of IEEPA refunds by Judge Richard Eaton, who the Court of International Trade has tasked with overseeing all refund matters.
In the Atmus case, Judge Eaton issued an order compelling CBP to liquidate unliquidated entries without the tariffs, as well as reliquidate both finally and not finally liquidated entries without the tariffs. That order was suspended while CBP developed an administrative system for refunds.
In the case, Eaton also rejected efforts by Atmus to establish a plaintiffs' steering committee.
With the dismissal of Atmus, the Court will need to identify a new lead case to continue overseeing IEEPA refund litigation. Importers with pending refund claims should monitor developments closely, as the transition to a new lead case could affect the timeline and procedures for processing refunds.
3/28/26 — CIT Expands Paused IEEPA Tariff Refund Order to Include Finally Liquidated Entries
On March 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade took a significant step in the IEEPA tariff refund litigation by expanding its refund order to cover finally liquidated entries, not just entries that remain unliquidated or non-final. Judge Richard Eaton amended his prior directive to state that any liquidated entries for which liquidation is final shall be reliquidated without regard to the IEEPA duties, potentially opening the door to substantial additional refund exposure for the government once the current pause on implementation is lifted.
At the same time, the court continued its suspension of the order to the extent that it requires immediate compliance, and denied AGS Company Automotive Solutions' motion to lift the stay in its lead case, CIT No. 25-00255. That means importers still do not yet have a live, operational roadmap for how CBP will process IEEPA refunds on finally liquidated entries, even though the court has now confirmed that such relief is within the scope of the remedy.
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.