What Every Multinational Should Know About…Managing the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s IEEPA Tariff Decision (Part I)

Preserving the Right to IEEPA Tariff Refunds

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court States issued its long-anticipated decisions in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and the consolidated case Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose broad-based tariffs. The Court invalidated all of the Trump administration’s IEEPA-based tariff programs, including the February 2025 fentanyl-related tariffs and the April 2025 “Liberation D—ay” global and reciprocal tariffs. The full refund of these tariffs would exceed $130 billion.

Importantly, the Court did not address the issue of refunds for previously paid IEEPA tariffs, instead remanding the case back to the Court of International Trade for further proceedings. At the same time, President Trump held a press conference to announce that the administration would quickly pivot to alternative tariff authorities to support heightened tariffs going forward, including temporary 10 percent tariffs under Section 122 (with President Trump announcing an increase to 15 percent the next day), potential new sectoral tariff investigations under Section 232, and potential unfair trade practice investigations under Section 301. Thus, while the Supreme Court has brought an end to the use of IEEPA to support tariffs and tariff threats, many questions remain open, including the consequential issue of whether, how, and to whom refunds will be issued.

To help importers handle this uncertainty, the Foley International Trade & National Security and Supply Chain teams are providing a five-part series regarding how to manage the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s IEEPA decision. The series covers:

• Part I: Preserving the Right to IEEPA Tariff Refunds.
• Part II: Contractual Issues for Importers of Record.
• Part III: Customs & Supply Chain Issues for Importers of Record.
• Part IV: Contractual Issues for Companies That Indirectly Paid IEEPA Tariffs.
• Part V: Avoiding Common Pitfalls.

What the Supreme Court Decided

In a 6-3 decision, the Court concluded IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose broad-based tariffs. The maze of concurring and dissenting opinions broke into three groups. First, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, relied heavily on the major questions doctrine and the long history of IEEPA never being used to support peacetime tariffs. Based on these points, they concluded that Congress did not intend for IEEPA to support broad-based tariffs. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson reached the same conclusion, but based on the statute’s plain language, structure, and context. Finally, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented and would have upheld the IEEPA tariffs.

Remand to Court of International Trade (CIT) to Address Refunds

Notably, the Court did not address two key issues: (1) how to handle refunds of previously collected IEEPA tariffs; and (2) whether the CIT can issue a nationwide injunction or other global form of relief to require CBP to refund all IEEPA duties. The Court instead remanded to the CIT for further proceedings, which now must consider:

• whether refunds are required and, if so, how they should be administered;
• whether relief will be limited to plaintiffs who filed protective actions at the CIT or extend more broadly to importers who have not filed;
• whether nationwide or blanket relief is permissible (which revisits an earlier determination by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that, prior to Supreme Court consideration of the issue, a nationwide injunction was improper);
• whether importers must first pursue administrative remedies such as post-summary corrections (PSCs) or protests;
• whether liquidation rules bar recovery for already-liquidated entries; and
• the mechanics and timing of any reliquidation process.

Notably, President Trump at the White House press conference took no definitive position on refunds, instead criticizing the Court for not providing refund implementation guidance and suggesting the refund issue would take “two years” or “five years” of litigation.

Why We Continue to Recommend Filing a 1581(i) Protective Tariff Action at the CIT

We continue to believe that filing a CIT 1581(i) protective action remains the most prudent course for importers seeking to preserve refund rights, for the following reasons:

• Securing Independent Oversight. There is a large variety of potential refund mechanisms, including existing administrative mechanisms (post-summary corrections and protests against liquidation) or new administrative mechanisms (establishing an automatic or opt-in administrative refund mechanism). These mechanisms are under the control of the administration, which has telegraphed resistance to providing refunds. Filing an individual court action puts control in the hands of an independent Article III judge.
• Speed of Relief. Any global relief will be extremely long and complicated because over 300,000 importers — who have imported over 25 million individual entries — have paid IEEPA tariffs, ensuring that any refunds process will be painful and slow. It is widely anticipated that having an individual claim will put importers at the front of the line.
• Administrative Remedy Uncertainty. The Supreme Court did not address whether administrative remedies (i.e., the filing of post-summary corrections (PSCs) or protests) are required. The CIT will need to determine whether such remedies are available, required, or adequate. A 1581(i) filing preserves jurisdiction regardless of how the Court resolves that issue.
• Potential Future Loss of the Right to File Under 1581(i). If an administrative refund mechanism is established, this may foreclose the ability of importers to file 1581(i) actions, forcing them into what likely would be a more cumbersome, slower, and potentially limited administrative refund mechanism (assuming one is set up).
• Effect of Liquidation. Ordinarily, liquidation renders duties final. But the CIT has already determined that, for entities that have filed 1581(i) actions, it has the inherent authority to reopen liquidation for liquidated entries, simplifying the need to track and consistently protest liquidation.
• Avoiding Potential Bond Issues. Continuous entry bonds are generally set at 10% of duties, taxes, and fees paid over the prior 12 months, but CBP may increase bond amounts where it identifies heightened risk, including where there are significant volumes of unliquidated entries. When importers file protests, CBP often suspends liquidation of those entries. This can cause duties to accumulate in the bond calculation, thereby potentially requiring sharply higher bond amounts (and posted collateral). By contrast, a protective filing under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) allows importers to preserve refund claims without relying on prolonged unliquidated exposure because the CIT has indicated it has the authority to order reliquidation in appropriate cases. As a result, a 1581(i) strategy should mitigate the risk of escalating continuous bond requirements.

In light of these uncertainties, filing at the CIT remains the most direct way to preserve rights, maintain judicial oversight before an Article III judge, and ensure procedural control during what is likely to be a complex and time-consuming process, while also likely offering the prospects of receiving refunds in a timely manner.

If you have questions, please reach out to the authors or your Foley & Larder relationship attorney.

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ #1: What are IEEPA tariffs, and how do I determine how much my company paid?

IEEPA tariffs were enacted by the Trump Administration in 2025 pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. These tariffs consist of: (1) the fentanyl-based tariffs, announced in February 2025 on China, Mexico, and Canada to counter the influx of opioids into the United States; (2) the global and reciprocal tariffs, announced in April 2025 (on “Liberation Day”) to counter long-standing trade imbalances between the United States and other countries; and (3) IEEPA tariffs announced in July and August 2025 on India and Brazil. Although not formally announced yet, the Iran-related tariffs likely also will be issued under IEEPA. The first two sets of tariffs were squarely presented to the Supreme Court, but we anticipate the logic of the Supreme Court’s ruling would apply to the general scope of the IEEPA tariffs and thus would have implications for any and all tariffs imposed under IEEPA.

IEEPA tariffs do not include: (1) Section 232 sectoral tariffs (e.g., special steel, aluminum, copper, lumber, and automotive tariffs); (2) the Section 301 tariffs on China; (3) antidumping or countervailing duties; or (4) the normal Chapter 1-97 HTS-based tariffs that have existed for many years.

If your company has access to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE, which is the Customs portal), you can identify the IEEPA tariffs paid by running a report on your entry date beginning February 1, 2025 (prior to the first IEEPA tariff) by requesting a duty summary report that filters for HTSUS Chapter 99 tariff provisions associated with the IEEPA measures (e.g., 9903.01.xx and 9903.02.xx, as applicable), where duties were assessed and paid under those provisions. If your company has not set itself up for ACE access (which we recommend), then your Customs broker can pull this information.

FAQ #2: Will companies automatically receive refunds, or do they need to take action?

At present, it is unclear whether refunds will be issued automatically. The Supreme Court did not mandate a refund mechanism and remanded the issue to the CIT, which will need to determine whether relief will be:

• limited to parties before the Court;
• implemented through an administrative process (e.g., protests or a special refund program);
• implemented in some type of CIT-overseen process; or
• applied more broadly through some form of global relief.

Importantly, the Trump administration has publicly signaled resistance to issuing refunds and has suggested the issue may be litigated for several years. As a result, importers should not assume refunds will be automatic and should consider taking affirmative steps now to preserve their rights.

FAQ #3: Are companies still able to file 1581(i) actions at the Court of International Trade now that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued its decision?

Yes — and for many importers, doing so may still be advisable.

Although the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs, the Court did not address how refunds are to be implemented. The case has been remanded to the CIT to resolve the remedial and procedural issues.

Section 1581(i) provides the CIT with residual jurisdiction over civil actions arising out of laws providing for tariffs where no other adequate remedy is available. At present, several key questions remain unresolved, including:

• whether the CIT will limit relief to plaintiffs before it or extend relief more broadly;
• whether importers must pursue administrative remedies (such as post-summary corrections or protests) before seeking judicial relief;
• whether entries that have already liquidated may be reopened; and
• whether administrative remedies, if theoretically available, would be considered adequate in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Because these issues remain open, 1581(i) jurisdiction likely has not been foreclosed. Until the CIT determines whether administrative remedies are exclusive and adequate — and until it defines the scope of relief — importers may still file protective 1581(i) actions to ensure they are directly before the Court when those determinations are made.

Importantly, if the CIT were to conclude in the future that administrative remedies are fully available and adequate, that determination could affect the availability of new 1581(i) filings at that time.

FAQ #4: What is the deadline to file a 1581(i) action?

Actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) are generally subject to a two-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2636(i). But there is currently significant uncertainty regarding when that limitations period begins to run, including whether it is tied to:

• the date duties were paid;
• the date of liquidation; or
• the date of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Because the government may assert statute of limitations defenses based on any of these theories, importers should consider filing promptly to mitigate timing risk. In addition, because the establishment of an administrative refund action, which may be cumbersome and present risks of slow payment, could block future filings, it likely is advantageous to get a case on file sooner to lock in judicial oversight of the importer’s refund claims.

FAQ #5: Can companies still recover refunds if their entries have already liquidated?

Ordinarily, liquidation renders duties final and conclusive, subject to importers being allowed to protest liquidation. At this time, it is unknown how CBP is handling protests against liquidation, as it has up to two years to determine how to proceed. Because the CIT already has determined that it has the inherent authority to order reliquidation — solely for entries covered by pending § 1581(i) actions — filing a protective 1581(i) action avoids the uncertainty of filing protests without knowing how they will be handled by CBP. As a result, importers with liquidated entries face increased risk if they have not filed protective 1581(i) tariff actions.

FAQ #6: Will refunded IEEPA tariffs include interest?

It is currently unclear whether refunds will include interest. CBP has previously acknowledged before the CIT that, in the event IEEPA duties were found to be unlawful, importers receiving refunds would also be entitled to interest accruing to same refunds. And in a December 15, 2025, ruling, the CIT held that CBP is now legally barred from taking a position contrary to those representations. Nevertheless, while the CIT determination supports a claim for refunds with interest, the issue will likely be litigated and may depend on other factors, including the statutory basis for relief, whether the importer is a party to the litigation, and how the CIT structures any remedy.

FAQ #7: Are many companies filing?

Yes. There are now over 2000 complaints filed, covering probably more than 2500 companies (as companies generally file actions to cover all affiliates). We anticipate that there will be a sharp increase in filings over the coming weeks now that the Supreme Court has issued its IEEPA tariffs decision.

FAQ #8: What is involved in a filing?

Filings under 1581(i) include the summons, the complaint, and all supporting forms. To complete the filing, the following information is needed:

• The importer’s parent corporation(s), all of its publicly owned companies, any publicly held company that has a 10% or greater ownership interest in the entity, and any publicly owned affiliate of the entity, and descriptions of the relationships between the importer and each identified company.
• The principal place of business of each filing importer of record.
• The identity of the real party in interest if distinct from the filing importer.
• Whether the client already requested CBP to extend the liquidation date and whether CBP has ruled on the request.
• Whether the client already filed post-summary corrective actions regarding IEEPA entries and whether the CBP has ruled on the PSC.

FAQ #9: What happens if an importer does not file with the CIT?

At this time, there are at least four forms of uncertainty: (1) the Supreme Court not dealing with the refunds issue; (2) the Supreme Court not dealing with the issue of whether the CIT is allowed to issue nationwide injunctive relief; (3) whether the administration will take steps to limit the administrative options for securing administrative relief; and (4) whether the CIT will limit relief to parties that have filed at the CIT. In light of these uncertainties, importers that do not take action face several risks, including:

• being excluded from any relief if the CIT limits refunds to parties before the Court;
• losing the ability to recover duties due to statute of limitations constraints;
• being unable to challenge liquidation finality;
• having to rely on uncertain and potentially delayed administrative processes; and
• potentially having to post a much larger continuous entry bond (which requires backup collateral).

FAQ #10: Can non-importers of record (e.g., customers who paid the tariffs) recover?

Generally, only the importer of record has standing to recover duties from CBP. But downstream parties may assert contractual claims and/or require cooperation from the importer to pursue recovery, while securing an agreement to share any refunds that are issued.

FAQ #11: With the U.S. Supreme Court’s invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs, what statutory authorities might the Administration use next?

During its press conference following the Supreme Court decision, President Trump stated that the Administration intends to pivot to alternative trade authorities, including:

• Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (temporary tariffs intended to remedy large and serious balance-of-payments deficits; limited to 150 days; announced to go into effect on February 24, 2026). Although the initially announced rate was 10 percent, President Trump posted on Truth Social the next day that it was rising to 15 percent (the highest tariff allowed by the statute). Notably, the use of Section 122 to impose global tariffs may itself generate litigation, depending on the scope of the tariffs, the time period that they are in effect, and statutory interpretation, as well as the basic question of whether broad-based tariffs can be justified in a trade provision designed to deal with balance-of-payment emergencies like a run on the U.S. dollar.
• Expanded use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the imposition of sectoral tariffs based on national security grounds. The administration already has twelve investigations either ongoing or completed, with tariffs already imposed for steel, aluminum, copper, lumber, and automobiles and other vehicles; we anticipated that pending investigations will be completed quickly and that the Administration will launch new investigations.
• Expanded use of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which is the unfair trade practices provision already used to support the special China tariffs imposed in the first Trump administration. By leveraging existing factual information, such as the annual USTR regarding unfair trade practices, it would be possible for the Administration to expedite these reviews.

FAQ #12: When does CBP’s collection of IEEPA duties formally end?

CBP will stop collecting IEEPA duties on February 24, 2026, at 12:00 a.m. ET. On February 20, 2026, following the Supreme Court’s ruling on IEEPA tariffs, President Trump ordered CBP to “as soon as practicable” stop collecting IEEPA duties. On February 22, 2026, CBP announced that it would stop assessing IEEPA duties on U.S. imports on February 24, 2026 — immediately after which it will begin assessing Section 122 duties.

The Foley International Trade & National Security Practice

The Foley International Trade & National Security Team covers the full gamut of international trade needs, including for tariffs, Customs, supply chain/supply chain integrity, trade remedies/antidumping/countervailing duty, export controls, economic sanctions, and CFIUS national security filings. Our Tariff & International Trade blog regularly publishes practical guidance, like this client alert, on all international trade topics and compiles it by topic area on the Foley Tariff & International Trade Resources blog. Click Here to Register for our email list to receive future emails and practical international regulatory compliance tips, including our biweekly What Every Multinational Should Know articles.