IEEPA Tariff Refunds After the Federal Circuit's March 2 Ruling: Costs, Deadlines, and What Importers Need to Do Now
- Jeff Chang
- 23 hours ago
- 11 min read
Updated: 24 minutes ago
UPDATE (March 5, 2026): On March 4, after this article was published, Judge Eaton of the CIT issued an order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States directing CBP to refund IEEPA duties for all importers of record. The government has indicated it will quickly appeal. At this time, our recommendations below have not changed, and importers should continue to take steps to preserve their refund rights. We will publish a full analysis of the order and its implications shortly.
If your business paid tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) over the past year, you are likely owed a refund. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. And on March 2, the Federal Circuit denied the government's request to delay proceedings and ordered its mandates to issue immediately, sending the case back to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT).
The legal question is settled. The tariffs were unlawful from the beginning. But if you are waiting for an automatic refund check in the mail, you may be waiting a very long time, or it may never come at all. Here is what importers need to understand about why refunds require action, what it realistically costs, and what steps to take now.
The Courts Are Moving Faster Than the Government Wants
The timeline matters because it tells you something about the government's posture toward refunds.
After the Supreme Court ruled on February 20, the Justice Department asked the Federal Circuit to delay sending the case back to the CIT. Specifically, the government requested that the court wait for the Supreme Court to formally finalize its judgment (a process that typically takes about 32 days) and then impose an additional 90-day stay. The stated reason was to give Congress time to consider a legislative solution for refunds.
On March 2, the Federal Circuit denied that request in a per curiam order and directed that its mandates issue "forthwith." This was a procedural ruling, but it signals something important: the courts are not inclined to let the administration delay the refund process.
Meanwhile, CBP issued guidance on February 22 announcing that it would stop assessing IEEPA duties on new imports, effective February 24. However, reports indicate that the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system continued to liquidate previously filed entries with IEEPA tariffs applied even after the Supreme Court's decision. If you are monitoring your entries, do not assume the system has fully caught up with the ruling.
Why Refunds Will Not Be Automatic
This is the part that catches most importers off guard. The Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, but it did not order refunds. It did not tell CBP to send checks. It did not create an administrative refund process. The majority opinion said nothing about how refunds should work.
Justice Kavanaugh, in his dissent, warned that the refund process "is likely to be a 'mess.'" On this point, at least, both sides seem to agree.
There are three reasons why passivity is risky.
First, no court has ordered the government to refund all importers. The ruling applies to the parties who brought the case. Other importers are not automatically covered. This is partly because the Supreme Court, in a separate June 2025 decision (Trump v. CASA, Inc.), limited the ability of federal courts to issue broad orders that protect people who are not parties to the lawsuit. Because of that ruling, the Federal Circuit had already vacated the CIT's original nationwide injunction against IEEPA tariffs back in August 2025, and when it sent the case back to the CIT on March 2, it did so without reinstating any broad relief.
The CIT may be able to extend refunds more broadly through other mechanisms, such as class certification or a streamlined claims process. But those mechanisms are not guaranteed, and they have not been established yet. As things stand, the surest way to be covered is to have your own case on file.
Second, the class action path has real uncertainty. At least one class action seeking IEEPA tariff refunds was filed in the CIT, but it was voluntarily dismissed before any substantive proceedings. And there is relevant history here: in 1996, the CIT declined to certify a class of payers who had paid the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT), even though the lower courts had already found the tax unconstitutional (a finding the Supreme Court later affirmed in 1998). The CIT suggested at the time that Congress should decide whether to create a special refund procedure. Congress never did.
Third, the administration has signaled it will not make this easy. At a press conference on the day of the ruling, President Trump suggested the refund question would need to be litigated, stating that he guessed "it has to get litigated for the next two years." Treasury Secretary Bessent, in a February 22 interview, stated that the Supreme Court did not address refunds and that the issue was "not up to the administration" but rather up to the lower courts. The government asked for a 90-day delay on March 2 and was denied, but the adversarial posture is clear.
What the Government Has Actually Conceded
Despite the adversarial posture, there are important concessions on the record that work in importers' favor.
On January 8, 2026, before the Supreme Court even ruled, the government stipulated in the CIT that it would refund IEEPA tariffs for "all current and future similarly situated plaintiffs" following a "final and unappealable decision." According to reporting on the stipulation, this commitment covers IEEPA tariffs imposed on all countries, including Brazil and India, which were not directly at issue in the Supreme Court case.
Separately, in the December 15, 2025 ruling in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. CBP, the CIT found that the government had taken an "unequivocal position" that liquidation would not affect the availability of refunds and would be estopped (legally barred) from reversing that position later. The CIT also confirmed its own authority to order reliquidation of entries where IEEPA duties were unlawfully collected.
Based on the CIT's findings in that case, the government is unlikely to contest the CIT's reliquidation authority going forward.
The tension between these formal concessions and the administration's public statements is significant. The government has committed, in court filings, to a process that its political leadership appears reluctant to follow through on. This is precisely why having your own case on file at the CIT matters. A stipulation that applies to "all current and future similarly situated plaintiffs" only protects you if you are, in fact, a plaintiff.
What It Realistically Costs to Pursue a Refund
This is where the conversation gets practical. For an importer who paid $50,000 or $500,000 or several million dollars in IEEPA duties, the question is whether it makes financial sense to hire a lawyer and file at the CIT.
Here is what you need to know about costs.
Filing at the CIT is not traditional litigation. When importers hear "federal lawsuit," they picture depositions, document discovery, expert witnesses, and a trial. IEEPA refund cases at the CIT are not that. There are currently more than 2,000 cases filed (as reported by late February 2026, with additional filings expected), and the CIT has been managing them through a consolidated process under Administrative Order 25-02. Cases are automatically stayed upon filing. There is no active discovery, no depositions, and no trial preparation happening in these cases right now.
What filing involves, at minimum, is preparing and submitting a summons and complaint to the CIT, paying the court filing fee, and then waiting while the consolidated process moves forward. The legal work required to prepare a filing is relatively standardized because every case raises the same core legal issue (the tariffs were unlawful) and the same basic remedy (reliquidation and refund of IEEPA duties paid).
Fee structures vary. Some firms handle these cases on a flat-fee basis for the initial filing. Others use contingency arrangements where the firm takes a percentage of any recovered duties. Some combine a modest flat fee with a contingency component. The right structure depends on the size of your potential refund, the complexity of your entry history, and how much ongoing involvement you expect to need.
The alternative may be more expensive. Investment banks and litigation funders have reportedly been purchasing refund rights from importers at discounts of 20% to 30% or more. The CIT has taken notice of this: in January 2026, the court revised its filing forms to require plaintiffs to disclose any third-party financing arrangements. If you are being approached by a firm offering to buy your refund rights, compare the discount they are proposing against the cost of simply hiring an attorney to file your own case. In many situations, direct legal representation will leave you with a larger recovery.
The Harbor Maintenance Tax Precedent: Why Waiting Can Be Costly
There is a historical parallel worth knowing about. In March 1998, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. United States Shoe Corp. that the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) on exports was unconstitutional. Like the IEEPA tariffs, the HMT had been collected from thousands of payers, and the government did not voluntarily issue refunds after the ruling. The CIT ordered refunds for parties who had filed complaints in August 1998, but the administrative regulation from Customs providing a broader refund procedure was not published until March 2001. The CIT had declined to certify a class of HMT payers back in 1996, which meant each claimant ultimately had to file its own case or wait for the administrative process. Litigation over interest on HMT refunds continued into 2002 and beyond.
There are reasons the IEEPA situation could move faster. The scale is much larger (an estimated $175 billion in potential IEEPA refunds, according to Penn Wharton Budget Model, compared with approximately $732 million in HMT export refunds reported by 2001). The political pressure is greater. And the government has already stipulated to refunding CIT plaintiffs, which it did not do in the HMT context. But the HMT experience is a reminder that a Supreme Court ruling declaring a tax or tariff unlawful does not, by itself, put money back in your account.
What Importers Should Do Now
Step 1: Determine how much you paid. IEEPA tariff data is accessible through CBP's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal. Each IEEPA tariff is identified by a unique Harmonized Tariff Schedule code on a separate line item with the amount paid. If you used a customs broker, they can pull this information for you.
Step 2: Understand where your entries are in the liquidation cycle. Liquidation generally occurs approximately 314 days after entry, though timing can vary. Entries that have already liquidated are in a different procedural posture than unliquidated entries. For unliquidated entries, Post-Summary Corrections (PSCs) may be available to request duty adjustments. For liquidated entries, the administrative protest pathway remains uncertain because the CIT has indicated that IEEPA duty assessments may not be protestable under 19 U.S.C. § 1514.
Step 3: Consider filing at the CIT. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), the CIT has residual jurisdiction over civil actions arising from laws providing for tariffs and duties on imports. The statute of limitations for § 1581(i) actions is generally two years from when the cause of action first accrued. However, there is genuine legal uncertainty about when the cause of action accrues in this context, and importers should not assume they have a specific deadline without consulting an attorney.
Beyond preserving your legal rights, filing now has practical advantages. The government's January 8 stipulation applies to "all current and future similarly situated plaintiffs." Being a plaintiff when the CIT establishes its refund procedures positions you to receive refunds in the earliest rounds of processing rather than waiting for a later administrative process that may or may not materialize.
Step 4: Keep records. Preserve all entry summaries, duty payment documentation, broker communications, and any internal records showing how tariff costs were allocated within your business. If your company passed tariff costs through to customers or absorbed them from suppliers, document those arrangements as well. The CIT's revised filing forms now require disclosure of third-party financing, which suggests the court is paying attention to who ultimately bears the economic burden of the tariffs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will CBP just automatically refund the IEEPA tariffs I paid?
There is no indication that CBP will process refunds automatically. The Supreme Court did not order refunds, and no administrative refund process has been announced. The safest path to a refund is through the CIT.
I already filed a customs protest. Is that enough?
It depends. The CIT's December 15, 2025 ruling indicated that IEEPA tariff assessments are not protestable CBP decisions because they were imposed by executive order, not by CBP. The protest pathway may reopen after the ruling becomes final, but this remains uncertain. Filing at the CIT under § 1581(i) provides a more secure basis for recovery.
What is the deadline to file for an IEEPA tariff refund?
The statute of limitations for CIT actions under § 1581(i) is generally two years from when the cause of action accrued, but there is legal uncertainty about exactly when accrual occurs in this context. Importers should not assume a specific deadline without consulting an attorney. What is clear is that filing sooner rather than later positions you for earlier processing under whatever refund procedures the CIT establishes.
How long will the refund process take?
No one knows with certainty. The CIT is expected to establish a case management process for refund claims. With more than 2,000 cases reported as filed by late February 2026, the court has strong incentive to create an efficient procedure. But based on historical precedent, importers should be prepared for a process that takes months to years, not weeks.
My business only paid $30,000 in IEEPA tariffs. Is it worth hiring a lawyer?
That depends on the fee arrangement. If an attorney is willing to file your case for a flat fee that represents a small fraction of your potential refund, the math may work. Compare the cost of legal representation against what litigation funders or refund-rights buyers are offering. A 25% discount to a Wall Street firm that buys your refund rights could cost you $7,500 on a $30,000 claim. Direct representation may cost less.
I import from China through a U.S.-based trading company. Who is entitled to the refund?
Refunds generally go to the importer of record listed on the entry documentation. If you are the manufacturer or supplier rather than the importer of record, your path to recovery depends on your contractual arrangements with the importing party. This is a common issue in U.S.-Asia trade relationships and worth discussing with an attorney who understands the structure of cross-border import operations.
What is the Court of International Trade? I have never heard of it.
The CIT is a federal court based in New York City with exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over cases involving tariffs, customs duties, and international trade. The Supreme Court confirmed in its February 20 ruling that the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to IEEPA tariffs. Attorneys must be separately admitted to practice before the CIT.
Are there new tariffs replacing the IEEPA tariffs?
Yes. On February 20, the same day as the Supreme Court ruling, the President signed a proclamation imposing a new 10% tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, effective February 24. The President subsequently announced via social media that the rate would be raised to 15%, the statutory maximum under Section 122. Section 122 tariffs are time-limited to 150 days (expiring approximately July 24, 2026) unless extended by Congress. These tariffs were not affected by the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling because they rely on a different statutory authority. The administration has also indicated it intends to pursue tariffs under Section 301 and Section 232, which operate under separate statutory frameworks.
About Chang Law Group
Chang Law Group represents importers and businesses engaged in U.S.-Asia trade. Attorney Jeff Chang is admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of International Trade, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and Massachusetts state courts. The firm assists clients with IEEPA tariff refund claims, customs disputes, and cross-border commercial matters.
If you have questions about whether your business may be eligible for an IEEPA tariff refund, contact Chang Law Group for a consultation.
Contact:
Phone: (617) 307-1238
Email: info@jchanglaw.com
WeChat: ChangLawGroupLLC
Chang Law Group LLC: One Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410 Boston, MA 02210
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The IEEPA tariff refund process involves rapidly evolving legal and administrative developments, and the information above reflects the state of affairs as of the publication date. It may not reflect subsequent court rulings, regulatory changes, or government actions. Importers should consult with a qualified attorney regarding their specific circumstances before taking any action based on this information.