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.