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

Preserving the Right to IEEPA Tariff Refunds

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court 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 Day” 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 (CIT) for further proceedings. Since then, the CIT has taken steps to push forward the issue of refunds, while also leaving open important questions, such as whether importers need to file individual actions at the CIT to safeguard their refunds status (or to expedite the issuance of their refunds).

At the same time, the Supreme Court’s reversal of the IEEPA tariffs has resulted in a cascading series of events, including a forced pivot by the administration to the use of new tariff authorities, activity at the CIT to force refunds, and companies jockeying behind the scenes to claim those tariff refunds.

To help deal with the aftermath of this historic decision, the Foley International Trade & National Security and Supply Chain teams are publishing a series of articles outlining key actions that companies should be taking now to navigate the post-decision landscape. The series covers:

• Part I: Understanding the New Section 122 Tariffs and Preserving IEEPA Refund Rights (found here)
• Part II: Preserving the Right to IEEPA Tariff Refunds
• Part III: Refund-Related Issues for Importers of Record
• Part IV: Customs & Supply Chain Issues for Importers of Record
• Part V: Refund-Related Issues for Companies That Indirectly Paid IEEPA Tariffs
• Part VI: Avoiding Common Pitfalls When Dealing with Refund-Related Issues
• Part VII: Understanding the Future Landing Spot for Tariffs

This article (Part II) accordingly provides an overview of the status of the CIT’s efforts to implement a comprehensive refund mechanism and outlines practical steps companies should take now to protect their interests in IEEPA tariff refunds, including potentially making a section 1581(i) protective tariff filing at the CIT.

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 the 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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (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, questioned whether nationwide relief to parties not before the CIT is proper);
• whether importers must first pursue administrative remedies such as post-summary corrections (PSCs) or protests or whether an automatic administrative refund mechanism can be established;
• 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. (Our best guess is that the trade courts will push this through on a much faster timetable, as it would make no sense to resolve the more difficult issue of whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs than to establish the mechanism for refunds. That being said, we do expect that the administrative process of executing any final refunds plan will be potentially lengthy, even if undertaken in good faith, due to the sheer number of entries and refunds required.)

Proceedings at the CIT

Following the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the IEEPA tariffs, the litigation returned to the CIT in part so that the mechanics of refunds could be addressed. The first major step in that process occurred at a March 4, 2026, hearing before Judge Richard Eaton in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Case No. 26-cv-01259 (2026).

During the hearing, the DOJ argued that refunds should largely proceed through traditional CBP administrative processes, such as protests filed after liquidation. Judge Eaton, however, expressed concern that requiring individual protests or separate lawsuits for each importer could impose an enormous administrative burden and delay refunds. Judge Eaton observed that the Supreme Court’s decision unequivocally established the unlawfulness of the IEEPA tariffs, emphasizing that the only solution consistent with the ruling would be an automatic refund of every penny collected under the IEEPA tariffs.

Immediately following the hearing, Judge Eaton issued an order directing CBP to begin unwinding the unlawful tariffs for many entries. In particular, the order required CBP to: (1) liquidate all unliquidated entries without applying the IEEPA tariffs, thereby refunding any IEEPA duties previously deposited; and (2) reliquidate entries that have liquidated but where the liquidation is not yet final (i.e., liquidated entries still within the protest period) without the IEEPA tariffs.

The order did not address entries where liquidation has already become final, leaving open the possibility that additional procedures, such as protests, could be required for those entries. This gap is particularly meaningful for informal entries, such as those previously subject to de minimis tariffs, because they often liquidated on a quicker timetable. Judge Eaton also indicated that relief should not necessarily be limited to the specific plaintiffs in the case, emphasizing the CIT’s nationwide jurisdiction over customs matters.

In response, two days later CBP proposed an alternative approach that could serve as a workable foundation for issuing refunds. The most significant proposal, detailed in paragraph 27 of the March 6, 2026, declaration, outlines a potential scalable mechanism for administering refunds. Rather than attempting to process more than 53 million entry-specific refunds, CBP proposed developing new functionality within the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) to streamline refunds on an importer-by-importer basis. Under this system, importers would submit a declaration in ACE identifying entries on which IEEPA duties were paid. ACE would then validate the entries, automatically recalculate duties owed without the IEEPA tariffs (including applicable interest), and trigger liquidation or reliquidation of the entries. Refunds and interest would then be aggregated by importer and liquidation date, with payments issued electronically by the Treasury Department.

CBP represented that automating the process in this manner could save the agency more than four million labor hours compared to manually processing refunds on an entry-by-entry basis. The agency further stated that it is making every effort to have the new ACE functionality operational within roughly 45 days. CBP emphasized that the system would require only minimal submissions from importers, while enabling the agency to validate refund calculations, resolve discrepancies, and confirm that no outstanding enforcement or revenue issues remain before refunds are issued. (In this regard, we are not certain what the purpose of having an initial step of requiring that importers designate which entries paid IEEPA tariffs serves, since the IEEPA tariffs have two dedicated HTS subheadings which already tag them as having been subject to IEEPA tariff rates. The impact of this would be to turn over any duties that were not affirmatively tagged to the U.S. Treasury, thereby not meeting Judge Eaton’s goal of refunding every penny of every IEEPA tariff paid.)

In short, the thrust of the March 6, 2026, submission was not to force importers into the traditional protest process but rather to request time for CBP to build a specialized automated refund mechanism within ACE capable of administering refunds across the enormous universe of affected entries in a more efficient and controlled manner. In light of this submission, Judge Eaton stayed the portion of his prior order stating that refunds should promptly occur, instead accepting the proposal and asking for a status update within one week on how efforts are proceeding.

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

Judge Eaton’s actions in compelling CBP to commit to a workable refund mechanism — and CBP’s subsequent pledge to implement it within 45 days — represent a welcome development for importers seeking IEEPA refunds. Nonetheless, significant ambiguity remains. As recently as last week, the U.S. Government maintained that it lacks statutory authority to provide refunds for many liquidated entries unless an importer files a CIT court action. It also clearly telegraphed that it would be appealing Judge Eaton’s order to provide prompt refunds (while returning two days later with a proposal to carry forward with refunds). Given these uncertainties, we continue to believe that filing a CIT 1581(i) protective action remains the most prudent course for importers with significant refunds at stake, in order to preserve refund rights. This position is supported by the following considerations:

• Minimizing the Risk of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Court (CAFC) Ruling that the CIT Does Not Have the Power to Offer Global Relief. The DOJ has indicated that it will appeal Judge Eaton’s order, which is currently suspended in light of the Department’s latest proposal to provide refunds on an importer-by-importer rather than entry-by-entry basis. The most vulnerable aspect of the order is its application of relief to parties and non-parties alike, an approach the CAFC previously questioned when the CIT struck down the IEEPA tariffs and sought to implement its decision broadly. This skepticism stems in part from a Supreme Court decision disfavoring nationwide injunctions, with the CAFC yet to issue a decision on how this decision applies to the CIT. The only sure way to avoid the risk of a reversal on relief for non-parties is to actually become a party.
• Minimizing the Risk of the CAFC Restricting the Ability to Offer Global Relief for Liquidated Entries to Non-Parties. Although CBP has proposed a process that offers a good starting basis for refunds, the DOJ also has indicated its opposition to Judge Eaton’s order. Just a few days ago in court, the U.S. Government reiterated its position that refunds for liquidated entries can be pursued only by an individual importer filing its own refund action at the CIT. Filing a 1581(i) individual action, once again, sidesteps potential risks from the CAFC accepting the DOJ’s position.
• Potentially Increasing the Chances of a Quicker Payout. Although CBP has put forward a plan to grant refunds “as soon as practicable,” the administration has pursued a “narrow and delay” litigation strategy. This includes asking to stay the lifting of the mandate by ninety days and pushing for additional time to develop its legal position. In prior major refunds litigation, importers who filed individually received refunds several years earlier than those who relief on the administrative process. Any global relief will be extremely long and complicated, as it would involve over 500,000 importers and over 70 million entries. It is widely anticipated that having an individual claim will put importers at the front of the line.
• Minimizing the Chances for Resistance to Refunds by the Trump Trade Team. The administration’s trade team clearly is a lot more interested in collecting tariffs than giving them back. Thus, many importers consider it advantageous to have an independent judge overseeing claims as a bulwark against the Trump trade team’s potential undermining of the refunds process. Given this reality, many importers with significant refunds at stake feel more comfortable having their refund rights in the hands of an independent Article III judge.
• Maximizing Potential Avenues for Recovery. Many importers who have a lot of IEEPA tariffs at stake are taking a risk-adverse approach, looking to maximize the potential avenues for discovery. Essentially, these importers are treating the CIT filing cost as a cheap insurance policy as compared to the large amount of IEEPA tariffs that they stand to gain.
• 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).

Given these considerations, filing with the CIT remains the most direct route to preserving rights, securing judicial oversight by an Article III judge, maximizing the potential avenues to a recovery, and ensuring procedural control during what will likely be a complex and lengthy process. It also increases the likelihood 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 the IEEPA tariffs, and how can companies determine how much they paid?

The IEEPA tariffs were imposed by the Trump administration in 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). These tariffs included:

• Fentanyl-related tariffs announced in February 2025 on China, Mexico, and Canada;
• Global and reciprocal tariffs announced in April 2025 (Liberation Day) addressing trade imbalances; and
• Country-specific tariffs announced later in 2025 on India and Brazil.

Although the Supreme Court directly reviewed only the first two tariff programs, the logic of the Court’s decision — that IEEPA does not authorize broad-based tariffs — likely has implications for all tariffs imposed under IEEPA.

Importantly, IEEPA tariffs do not include:

• Section 232 sectoral tariffs (e.g., steel, aluminum, copper, lumber, automotive tariffs);
• Section 301 tariffs on China;
• antidumping or countervailing duties; or
• the normal HTS tariffs in Chapters 1–97.

Companies can determine their IEEPA tariff exposure by reviewing data in Customs’ Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). This typically involves running reports beginning February 1, 2025, and filtering for entries containing the relevant Chapter 99 tariff provisions associated with IEEPA measures (such as 9903.01.xx or 9903.02.xx).

If a company does not have ACE access, its customs broker can typically generate the necessary reports.

FAQ #2: Will companies automatically receive refunds of IEEPA tariffs?

Not necessarily. Although the Supreme Court invalidated the tariffs, it did not establish a refund mechanism and instead remanded the issue to the CIT. The CIT must now determine:

• whether refunds are required and how they should be administered;
• whether relief will be limited to plaintiffs before the Court or extend more broadly;
• whether importers must first pursue administrative remedies such as protests or post-summary corrections; and
• how Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would operationalize any refund process.

The administration has also publicly signaled resistance to issuing refunds and suggested that the issue could be litigated for several years. As a result, companies should not assume refunds will occur automatically and should consider taking steps now to preserve their rights.

FAQ #3: Are companies still able to file §1581(i) actions at the Court of International Trade?

Yes — and for many importers, doing so may still be advisable. Section 28 U.S.C. §1581(i) provides the CIT with residual jurisdiction over actions arising out of laws providing for tariffs where no other adequate remedy is available. Although the Supreme Court ruled that the IEEPA tariffs were unlawful, it did not resolve key procedural issues, including:

• whether refunds will be limited to parties before the Court;
• whether importers must first pursue administrative remedies;
• whether liquidated entries may be reopened; and
• whether administrative remedies would be considered adequate in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Because these issues remain unresolved, protective §1581(i) filings remain available and may allow importers to ensure they are directly before the Court when those issues are resolved.

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 oflimitations under 28 U.S.C. §2636(i). But there is significant uncertainty regarding when that limitations period begins to run, including whether it may be tied to:

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

Because the government may raise statute-of-limitations defenses based on any of these theories, importers may wish to file sooner rather than later to mitigate timing risks. In addition, if an administrative refund mechanism is later established, that development could potentially limit or foreclose future §1581(i) filings, making earlier filings advantageous for companies seeking judicial oversight of their refund claims.

As another timing consideration, there are several potential theories regarding whether earlier developments could cut off the time to file. These theories center on the fact that a section 1581(i) right of action only exists when there is no ability of importers to file under section 1581(a) through (h) (because (i) is the residual right of action where no other filing authority exists). Once it is possible for importers to file protests against liquidation, there no longer is the potential to file under section 1581(i), because the denial of protests are actionable under section 1581(a). Thus, if there is a CIT order that definitively establishes the right to protest, or an executive order that has the same result, arguably there no longer is a right to proceed under 1581(i), meaning that only an administrative refund route is allowed.

Another theory is that once the Supreme Court’s decision becomes final, which occurs on Marcy 17^th (when the time to request a rehearing expires), then the right to file a protest based upon the Supreme Court’s decision becomes available. Although we believe that the prior paragraph offers the correct analysis (because the Supreme Court’s decision does not even discuss refunds), out of an abundance of caution we recommend that importers file before March 17^th.

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

Ordinarily, liquidation renders duties final and conclusive, unless the importer files a timely protest. The CIT, however, has indicated that, in cases where importers have filed §1581(i) actions, the Court may have authority to order reliquidation of affected entries. This could allow recovery even where entries have already liquidated.

That being said, for importers that have not filed protective actions, liquidation may create additional legal risk in pursuing refunds. Further, even Judge Eaton has noted that where liquidation is final, there are additional issues that could make refunds more difficult. As a result, we recommend that importers carefully monitor potential liquidation dates and consider filing protests, until such time as we have definitive judicial indications that such filings are irrelevant. Most customs brokers can file protests on a batch basis, making such filings a relatively cheap form of insurance.

FAQ #6: Will refunded IEEPA tariffs include interest?

Very likely — yes. CBP previously acknowledged before the CIT that, if IEEPA tariffs were ultimately determined to be unlawful, refunds would include interest. In a December 15, 2025, ruling, the CIT held that CBP may be legally barred from taking a position inconsistent with those prior representations. Further, in its latest proposal to set up an importer-by-importer administrative refund mechanism, CBP again mentioned that refunds would be made with interest.

Nevertheless, the issue may continue to be litigated and may depend on factors such as:

• the statutory basis for refunds;
• whether the importer is a party to the litigation; and
• how the CIT ultimately structures any refund remedy.

FAQ #7: Are many companies filing protective actions?

Yes. More than 2,000 complaints have already been filed at the Court of International Trade, covering well over 2,500 companies, as importers frequently include multiple affiliated entities in a single action. The number of filings has continued to grow, including with filings by some very large importers after the Supreme Court issued its determination.

FAQ #8: What information is required to file a §1581(i) action?

A typical filing includes a summons, complaint, and supporting disclosures. To complete the filing, importers generally must provide:

• the identity of the importer and its principal place of business;
• the importer’s corporate ownership structure, including publicly held parent companies and affiliates;
• identification of any real party in interest, if different from the importer;
• whether the importer has requested extensions of liquidation from CBP; and
• whether the importer has filed post-summary corrections or protests relating to IEEPA entries.

FAQ #9: What happens if an importer does not file a protective action?

Companies that do not file may face several uncertainties, including:

• the possibility that the CAFC on appeal could limit refunds to parties before the Court;
• the impact of liquidation finality; and
• reliance on potentially slow or uncertain administrative refund mechanisms.

In addition, pursuing refunds solely through protests may result in large volumes of suspended entries, which could affect continuous entry bond requirements.

FAQ #10: Can non-importers of record recover IEEPA tariffs?

Generally, only the importer of record has standing to obtain duty refunds from CBP. Nonetheless, downstream parties, such as customers who ultimately bore the economic cost of the tariffs, may pursue contractual claims or negotiate agreements with the importer to share in any refunds that are recovered. We will be covering these issues in Parts III through V of this series.

FAQ #11: When does CBP’s collection of IEEPA duties formally end?

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, President Trump directed CBP to stop collecting IEEPA duties “as soon as practicable.” CBP subsequently announced that it would stop assessing IEEPA duties on February 24, 2026, at 12:00 a.m. ET. Beginning at that time, CBP transitioned to collecting the new Section 122 tariffs. It is unclear whether it is possible to file protests regarding IEEPA tariffs collected in between the Supreme Court’s decision and February 24; this issue likely will be handled by the CIT as part of its overall oversight of the refunds issue.

FAQ #12: What tariff authorities might the administration use instead of IEEPA?

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the administration indicated that it intends to rely on alternative trade authorities, including:

• Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary tariffs (up to 15%) for up to 150 days to address balance-of-payments issues;
• expanded use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows sector-specific tariffs on national security grounds; and
• expanded use of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which addresses unfair foreign trade practices.

These authorities may form the foundation of the administration’s tariff policy going forward. We will analyze the likely landing spot for tariffs in Part VII of this series on coping with the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s IEEPA tariffs decision.

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.