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.