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

Alert

This article was updated on April 16, 2026.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has now announced an administrative process for importers to seek refunds following the Supreme Court’s landmark Learning Resources decision against the various tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). There is still ongoing litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), and the key case at the moment is Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States et al (Court No. 25-00595), where Judge Richard Eaton has ordered broad relief for importers, but is suspending the implementation of that order based on the assurances from CBP that the agency is making progress on an electronic system for importers to file refunds. The client alert summarizes that litigation and any relevant actions by the Trump Administration.

Is There a Certain Path to Refunds Yet?

Yes, importers now have a path to claim refunds administratively through a system called “CAPE”, although the scope is limited during Phase 1 of CAPE’s implementation. The CIT has issued various orders, directing CBP to refund IEEPA duties. In response, CBP has said that it cannot process refunds in a timely manner without developing a new functionality within its Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) specifically for IEEPA refunds. The new functionality is called the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries or “CAPE.” The CIT has been suspending the implementation of its orders for relief while CBP has been submitting weekly progress reports for CAPE. On April 10, 2026, CBP announced that CAPE will be ready for use on Monday, April 20, 2026, although its scope will be limited during Phase 1. Based on the litigation at the CIT, we expect that CBP will broaden the scope for CAPE in the coming months.  

One goal of CAPE is that importers will not need to file protests, submit post-summary corrections, or file a case at the CIT, although as noted below importers may still want to submit protests or even file at the CIT, if there is concern that an importer's rights may lapse.  

How Quickly Will Importers Get Refunds?

CBP estimates that importers using CAPE “generally” will get refunds in 60-90 days, unless CBP flags compliance issues that require further review. There is nothing that requires refunds in that timeline, however, if CAPE does not function as intended (for example).

Will CAPE Cover All Entries with IEEPA Tariffs? 

No, at least not yet.  

In Phase 1, CAPE is available for unliquidated entries or entries that have liquidated within 80 days of the date of submission within CAPE, as long as an importer has not filed a protest for the entry. Based on court filings, we expect – but cannot guarantee – that CAPE will be extended to cover entries that have liquidated more than 80 days but have not yet become final (usually 180 days after liquidation) or entries that have liquidated and passed the deadline for a protest. Importers may still want to file protests if their entries are approaching the protest deadline (180 days after liquidation), but that will also likely prevent future filings within CAPE if the scope changes in future phases (and then CBP is not required to act on protests within two years).

Typically – but not always – entries liquidate in 314 days from the entry date. From the liquidation date, importers typically have 180 days to file a protest, or the liquidation becomes final, unless some other exclusion applies (for example, perhaps CBP reliquidates the entry, restarting the clock). For example, if an entry was made on February 1, 2025, the expectation is that the entry would liquidate on December 12, 2025, and the window for filing a protest would close on June 10, 2026. In other words, most entries including IEEPA duties should be in this phase and eligible for refunds through Phase 1 of CAPE.

The CIT and CBP appear to be moving in the direction of using CAPE for entries that have liquidated (more than 80 days prior to the submission), even if the deadline for a protest has lapsed. That being said, this issue remains to be settled, and importers should be closely monitoring their entries to see if entries liquidated sooner than expected for any reason.

Moreover, there are numerous exceptions for CAPE Phase 1, including the following:

• Entries flagged for reconciliation or designated for a drawback claim;
• Entries covered by an open protest; and
• Entries subject to antidumping or countervailing duties (type 03 entries).

There may be other exceptions that prevent filing, including – for example – any claims for refunds when the original entry was not filed within ACE. CBP has indicated that it is working on updates to CAPE that may allow some of these categories of entries to be included in the future.  

Also, an important exception is for companies that paid tariffs (including IEEPA tariffs) for entries that otherwise would have been eligible for duty-free entry under the de minimis for entries with a value less than $800 pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C). There is separate litigation at the CIT covering those entries, after President Trump utilized IEEPA to end the de minimis exception prior to its expected phase-out in 2027 pursuant to recent legislative changes.

Will CAPE Cover All IEEPA Duties?

Yes, CBP’s administrative process does not have different requirements for IEEPA programs based on different executive orders, except for tariffs on de minimis entries (i.e., entries with value less than $800).  While the litigation at one point suggested that relief may only be available for tariffs reviewed by the Supreme Court, CBP and the CIT now are providing relief for all IEEPA tariffs, except for tariffs on de minimis entries, which is subject to separate litigation.

What If Entries Are Approaching the Deadline for Filing a Protest?

Importers should consult the Honigman Tariff Task Force to assess what to do if entries are currently approaching the protest deadline.

Will CBP Provide Refunds for Entries That Have Missed the Protest Deadline?

It remains to be seen whether CAPE will process refunds for any such entries (where the entry has liquidated, and the liquidation is final because no protest was filed within 180 days), but it does seem possible that CBP is going to allow claims for such entries in future phases of CAPE. If that is not possible, then importers seeking refunds for any final liquidated entries may need to file a claim at the CIT using 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), which has a two-year statute of limitations, as noted below. Again, importers should consult with the Honigman Tariff Task Force to assess options and strategies.

How Will CAPE Work?

Importers or their brokers will be able to submit lists of entries with IEEPA tariffs in CAPE. Once submitted, these claims cannot be amended (so if an importer wants to add entries, it will need to file a second claim). A claim can include 9,999 entries, so the volume can be very large. Information regarding CAPE’s functionality is limited to court filings. It is expected that importers will start the refund process by submitting a list of all entries that included IEEPA tariffs through CAPE’s “Claim Portal.” Then CBP through CAPE’s “Mass Processing” stage will use ACE to verify the data and log changes to the entries’ histories. Then CAPE will have a “Review and Liquidation/Reliquidation” stage, presumably where CBP officials will review the submitted data against a report from ACE verifying the data or raising concerns. And finally, there will be a component for providing refunds, once the prior three stages are complete.

Also, CBP will pay refunds ONLY IF IMPORTERS HAVE ENROLLED FOR ACH REFUNDS THROUGH THE CBP ACE PORTAL. Many importers have already done this, but every importer seeking a refund should ensure that they have done so in order to receive a refund.  

Please see CBP’s Trade Bulletin for further information.  

What Types of Issues May Delay Refunds within CAPE?

CBP has indicated that before providing refunds, CBP will review the relevant entries for compliance generally, with an emphasis on antidumping and countervailing duty orders, Section 232 tariffs, and Section 301 tariffs, For example, if goods are entered in a general catch-all subheading in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) that has been identified as a classification that is used for goods subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order, the importer may need to verify that the goods are outside the scope of any such orders. Moreover, if the entries already include goods that are subject to antidumping or countervailing duties, CBP may not provide any IEEPA refunds until the final antidumping or countervailing duties are fixed. That may delay refunds only a few months, or it may delay refunds for some entries by several years, depending on the status of the antidumping or countervailing duty review or reviews impacting an entry. In court, CBP has indicated that it working to address this issue. 

Entries may not be eligible for CAPE or may be subject to further delays if there are other adjustments or corrections to information. This is an open question.

The refund process could be halted if the U.S. government challenges the order directing refunds to all importers, including those who have not sought relief from the CIT, as improper after Trump v CASA, Inc.’s blocked judges from directing nationwide relief. But these seems unlikely given CBP’s announcements for CAPE’s implementation.  

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.

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.

CIT Background following the Supreme Court Decision

Following a non-public hearing on March 4, 2026, the CIT issued an order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. US (Court No. 26-01259) that granted broad relief for all importers. This case was not part of the chain of prior decisions regarding the validity of tariffs that led to the recent Supreme Court decision in Learning Resources.

In the order, Judge Richard Eaton – who was not involved in the prior CIT decision on the validity of IEEPA tariffs – ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund all IEEPA tariffs for any entries that remain unliquidated as well as any entries that are liquidated but still not final under 19 USC §1514 (allowing for protests within 180 days and other actions). Most importantly, this order was directed to apply to all importers, not just the company currently before the CIT and not just the companies who have already filed suit at the CIT. As noted above, this order originally applied to all IEEPA tariffs, then it applied to only those IEEPA tariffs considered by the Supreme Court, but the order has been expanded again to cover all IEEPA tariffs as of March 20, 2026, except for tariffs imposed on entries that otherwise would have qualified for duty free entry as de minimis (low value) goods.

In issuing this relief, Judge Eaton also noted that the Chief Judge for the CIT notified him that he would be the only judge to handle future cases regarding IEEPA tariffs (and the Supreme Court had confirmed in Learning Resources that the CIT is the only forum in which parties can bring a case against the government regarding IEEPA tariffs). In other words, the parties should not hope for a different judge at the CIT to issue a different order. And in anticipation of any appeal by the administration, Judge Eaton also articulated his reasoning for ordering relief broadly on behalf of all importers in a case that involved only one importer. Judge Eaton’s initial order establishes the ideal relief scenario for importers: IEEPA refunds processing automatically, avoiding a race to meet any protest deadlines or filing at the CIT. As discussed above, CBP has responded to this order by stating CBP needs time to prepare CAPE (a new functionality within ACE to provide most refunds), with weekly progress reports showing percentages of completion on the different elements of CAPE.

Atmus Filtration, however, moved to dismiss its case at the CIT in early April.   Thus, Judge Eaton lifted the stay Euro-Notions Florida. In doing so, Judge Eaton issued an order with following broad relief on April 7, 2026:

ORDERED that, with respect to any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to IEEPA duties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hereby directed to liquidate those entries without regard to the IEEPA duties. Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final shall be reliquidated without regard to those duties. Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is final shall be reliquidated without regard to the IEEPA duties.

This order thus also provided broad relief for importers, including for liquidated entries for which liquidation is final (meaning the protest deadline has passed.)

Expected Actions at the CIT and Federal Circuit

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

Congressional Action

Members of Congress – so far, only Democrats – 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 have some influence the dynamic and the Trump Administration positions.

What Importers Should Do Now

Prepare a claim for refunds on eligible entries, in accordance with the guidance above, presumably with the assistance of a customs broker.  If there are special circumstances (such as ineligible entries near a relevant deadline), or if CBP denies the claim for refunds, please consult with Honigman’s Tariff Task Force. 

CBP Webpage for IEEPA Refunds:

https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/trade-remedies/ieepa-duty-refunds