Wave of New CIT Lawsuits Filed to Preserve Rights to IEEPA Tariff Refunds

In recent weeks, dozens of importers have filed protective lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) to preserve potential refund rights related to the tariffs at issue in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which are currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. These lawsuits protect an importer’s right to refunds of those tariffs if the Supreme Court determines that they should be returned.

As discussed in Holland & Knight alerts published on Nov. 7 and Nov. 25, 2025, the Supreme Court recently heard argument on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., authorizes the president to impose tariffs. The Court’s forthcoming ruling could affect the lawfulness of duties already paid and mechanisms available for recovering them.

Given the stakes and procedural uncertainty, importers should evaluate now whether a protective CIT filing is necessary to safeguard their rights.

Many companies are acting because the current posture is, by any measure, unusual. It remains unclear how the Supreme Court's ruling will apply to past entries of goods or what procedural avenues will exist after the decision. Waiting may inadvertently limit importers’ options. A timely CIT filing is the most conservative and reliable way to maintain one’s position while the legal landscape continues to evolve.

Key Concern

A primary concern is entry liquidation, which constitutes U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) final computation of duties owed. Once an entry liquidates, the ability to adjust or recover duties becomes constrained. Given the real possibility that duties may be refundable if the Supreme Court rules against the government, importers should not allow entries to liquidate without considering whether affirmative action is required. A CIT lawsuit provides a mechanism to seek suspension of liquidation and prevents entries from reaching a point where refund claims could become significantly more difficult – or foreclosed altogether.

In addition, there remain open questions regarding administrative remedies and protests that address the legality of the tariffs themselves. It is not yet clear that issues tied to presidential authority under IEEPA would fall within the scope of traditional, protestable CBP decisions. If these issues are ultimately deemed non-protestable, relying solely on protests could leave importers without a viable refund remedy. Filing in the CIT before liquidation is final offers a prudent safeguard against this scenario.

A protective filing also provides procedural advantages should refunds become available. If the Supreme Court’s decision leads to judicial or administrative refund mechanisms, importers with pending CIT cases will already have jurisdiction, timeliness and preservation-of-rights arguments firmly in place. They may also receive earlier clarity regarding legal issues and administrative requirements and avoid future bottlenecks associated with large-scale post-decision refund claims.

For many companies, a protective CIT action is proving to be a cost-effective risk-management strategy. The burden of initiating litigation is modest relative to the financial exposure involved – especially if a later ruling opens the door to significant refunds but procedural obstacles prevent recovery. A filing now may also reduce downstream legal costs associated with attempting to reopen liquidated entries or contest adverse administrative determinations.

Conclusion

Given the financial implications and the rapid increase in filings, importers should review their circumstances immediately. Whether to file a protective CIT action depends on several factors that should be imminently considered.

Holland & Knight's International Trade Group is closely monitoring these developments and can help evaluate your company’s specific exposure to determine whether a protective filing is advisable. The Holland & Knight team is also in a position to quickly make a protective CIT filing should you decide to move forward.

For more information or questions, please contact the authors.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.