Seeking Refunds After Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump for IEEPA Tariffs

There is active lower court litigation over options for relief for importers following the Supreme Court’s landmark Learning Resources decision against the various tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).  The client alert summarizes that litigation and any relevant actions by the Trump Administration. 

Is There a Certain Path to Refunds Yet? 

No, not yet.  The courts have not yet answered basic questions such as if, how or when importers who paid these tariffs will receive a refund, although as discussed below, there is relevant history already in the relevant cases.  While the legal landscape will continue to evolve, Honigman’s trade lawyers have prepared this alert to assist importers who are assessing whether they need to take legal action now in order to protect their rights for refunds. 

We expect the next significant update to be on March 17, 2026, when the Department of Justice is expected to file a response brief regarding refunds and other remedies in the related litigation. 

Supreme Court Decision Background

On Friday, February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. This Supreme Court decision was generated by one case started at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), with an affirming decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC or Federal Circuit), as well as another decision at the District Court for the District of Columbia (DDC). 

In its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CAFC and dismissed the DDC case, thereby establishing the CIT and the CAFC as the courts for deciding and ordering refunds for the illegal tariffs. 

See our prior alert, Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs, But White House Announces New 10% Global Tariff in Response, for further information. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) stopped collecting IEEPA tariffs at the end of the day on Monday, February 23, 2026.  At the same time, CBP issued instructions for collecting tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 122”), pursuant to the President’s executive order replacing the IEEPA tariffs with new tariffs citing a balance-of-payments crisis.  The new Section 122 tariffs on all countries began as of midnight on February 24, 2026, although they do not apply to some shipments already on the water.  The rate is currently set at 10%, but there is anticipation that the rate may increase to the maximum 15%, based on statements by President Trump.

New Filings for Relief at the Federal Circuit and CIT

As expected, counsel for parties responsible for the underlying cases at CIT and the Federal Circuit have filed for relief at each court this week.

In May 2025, CIT originally found that the IEEPA tariffs were illegal and ordered the U.S. government to “issue administrative orders effectuating the injunction [against IEEPA tariffs] within 10 days.”  Presumably, any administrative orders would be issued by CBP.  Any CBP “administrative orders” could be broadly applicable instructions for all importers, or they could be limited to specific litigants.  This is still an open question. 

On August 29, 2025, the Federal Circuit had affirmed the substance of the CIT’s decision (that the IEEPA tariffs were illegal), but remanded the case for the CIT to reconsider the scope of its injunction.  The Federal Circuit put that process on hold, however, when the government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. 

On February 24, 2026, counsel for the importers bringing the original case have asked the Federal Circuit to allow the CIT to resume its efforts and order “swift relief.”  In particular, the parties pointed how the government, in numerous submissions prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, stated that “if tariffs are … ultimately held unlawful, then the government will ultimately issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any post-judgment interest that accrues.”   The filing said that fast action is needed in part because of recent statements by White House and Cabinet officials suggesting that only courts could order IEEPA tariff refunds. 

At the same time, counsel for the same parties filed at the CIT, asking the court to order the government “to issue administrative orders to effectuate the permanent injunction [against the IEEPA] tariffs, including the issuance of any administrative orders necessary to promptly refund all tariffs paid, with interest, under IEEPA.”  Noting the “existential threat” that IEEPA tariffs pose, the plaintiffs have positioned this injunction on behalf of themselves as well as those importers who “have filed and will file” cases against the IEEPA tariffs.  The brief states “the government cannot impose IEEPA tariffs on anyone without violating the Supreme Court’s decision.”

The plaintiffs also state that they are “willing to work with this Court and [the U.S. government] to fashion … relief in whatever manner the Court finds suitable” in these circumstances, with so many importers affected, with a footnote referring to the process that the CIT adopted more than two decades ago when the Harbor Maintenance Fee for exports was ruled unconstitutional.  Under that process, importers seeking a refund had to file at the CIT with supporting documentation. 

The Department of Justice is expected to file its response on or before the deadline of Tuesday, March 17, 2026. 

Expected Actions at the Federal Circuit and CIT

We expect that the Federal Circuit will lift its mandate and allow the CIT to consider granting relief to importers, including refunds.  CBP has already issued orders halting any current or future IEEPA tariffs; the CIT may still issue an injunction preventing any reversal in that policy, but the key issue for litigation will be how importers can seek and receive refunds.  As noted, the Trump Administration has taken the position in court that it will grant refunds if the Supreme Court rules IEEPA tariffs illegal, and the CIT has said that CBP and other agencies will be estopped from taking other positions. That being said, there are various levers that CBP and the White House can deploy (or withhold deploying) if they want to make any refund process difficult to achieve. 

Each company’s risk profile and total exposure is different.  Honigman’s CIT lawyers are monitoring this litigation closely. While many importers have incurred IEEPA tariffs over the last twelve months, only those paid on “liquidated” entries are at risk at the moment. Liquidation refers to CBP’s process which finalizes the entry record, either by CBP review or automatically about 10 months after the shipment arrives.

Growing pressure may lead to CBP and the Trump Administration to work with the CIT to establish an automated refund process.  At that point, it will be clear whether importers will need to plan for CIT litigation, or whether CBP will allow recovery actions through administrative processes.  

Congressional Action

Members of Congress – so far, only Democrats – have introduced legislation in the House of Representatives and Senate to mandate refunds within fixed periods, without requiring legal filings or other burdensome actions.  We do not expect that these efforts will result in legislation that reaches the President’s desk for signature or veto, but it may influence the dynamic and the Trump Administration positions. 

What Importers Should Do Now

Our guidance for importers currently remains the same, in the wake of the Supreme Court decision – namely, to monitor the ongoing litigation and assess whether CBP will allow refunds without litigation, while also considering litigation now if a specific importer has a need to take action to preserve rights.  Many  importers may find their entries are safely away from any relevant deadlines. 

In assessing next steps, importers should keep in mind the following deadlines:

• Correction deadline: 300 days from entry date (or 15 days before liquidation) —unliquidated entries only (note: it remains to be seen whether CBP will allow corrections as a means to secure refunds)
• Protest deadline: 180 days from liquidation or reliquidation date (liquidated entries only). Missing this deadline may be an absolute bar to recovery, so it is best to avoid any challenge on this basis.
• Section 1581(i) statute of limitations: 2 years, conservatively from the first publication of IEEPA tariff rates (February 7, 2025, for China/Mexico/Canada tariffs; April 7, 2025, for reciprocal tariffs).

With these deadlines in mind, importers should take the following steps, if they have not already:

• Coordinate Across Your Organization: Companies should ensure aligned communications with customs brokers, outside trade counsel, tax team, and finance/accounting team.
  • Sales and business teams may already be fielding customer inquiries regarding product pricing impacts or rebates of refunded tariff cost sharing.
• Document Everything: Work with your customs broker to gather and preserve entry summaries, proof of duty payment, commercial invoices, bills of lading, tariff classifications, and country-of-origin documentation for all IEEPA-duty entries dating back to February 2025. Refunds may not be automatic. Companies with automated recordkeeping and entry-tracking systems will be better positioned to quantify claims and respond quickly to CBP or court-directed processes.
• Pull CBP ACE Reports: Companies should verify they have established access to CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) reporting system. The ACE 001, 002, and 013 reports identify every entry on which IEEPA duties were paid and whether those entries have liquidated. This data is essential for any refund claim. CBP has ceased providing physical refund checks, and companies must use ACE to complete the application for automated refund deposits to a U.S. financial institution.
• Determine Liquidation Status of All Affected Entries: Entries fall into two categories, liquidated or unliquidated, and the refund mechanism likely differs for each:
  • Unliquidated entries: In theory, these entries could finalize without the IEEPA tariffs, and any IEEPA deposits should be refunded with interest at liquidation, although CBP may take a different position. A Post Summary Correction (PSC) may be available to correct the entry before CBP finalizes duties. PSCs must be filed within 300 days of the entry date or no later than 15 days before the scheduled liquidation date, whichever is earlier.
  • Liquidated entries: Entries which liquidated with IEEPA tariffs within the last 180 days could be protested to CBP to recover refunds. A protest must be filed within 180 days of the liquidation date. Missing this deadline is generally an absolute bar to recovery through the protest process. While the CIT has signaled that importers may obtain relief by filing directly under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), importers should remain vigilant about liquidation and protest deadlines. As noted, it is unclear at the moment how CBP will decide on these protests; if CBP denies them, then importers can appeal those decisions to the CIT.
• Consider Filing a Protective Action: Companies could seek protection at the CIT, either under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) for denied protests or under § 1581(i) for general tariff disputes. Companies should consult with Honigman’s trade counsel immediately to confirm available filing deadlines, especially if any entries may be nearing relevant deadlines for action.