Court of International Trade Orders Nationwide Tariff Refunds, But Expect Government to Appeal

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24–1287 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026), holding that tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful, several developments have occurred at the Court of International Trade (CIT) concerning how refunds of these "IEEPA tariffs" will proceed.

Most significantly, on March 4, 2026, CIT Judge Richard Eaton issued a Refund Order following a case brought by an importer against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking refunds of previously paid IEEPA tariffs. The Refund Order directs CBP as follows:

• for unliquidated entries, CBP must liquidate the entries without IEEPA tariffs
• for liquidated entries that are not yet final, CBP must reliquidate these entries without IEEPA tariffs

The court did not address liquidated entries that have become final.

Most notably, the CIT stated that its Refund Order applies to all importers, not only those that filed lawsuits. In doing so, the court concluded that the prohibition on universal injunctions discussed in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 865 (2025), does not apply to the CIT. The court reasoned that its statutory authority differs from that of federal district courts created under the Judiciary Act of 1789 – the courts whose authority to issue nationwide injunctions was addressed in CASA. The CIT also noted the Supreme Court's recognition of the CIT's exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of tariffs imposed by the federal government, including cases that would mirror the claims brought by the plaintiff in this action.

The court further indicated that Judge Eaton will preside over IEEPA tariff refund cases at the CIT.

At the hearing, the government made several key statements:

1. "It is not our position that every single entry and every importer will get a refund. Our position is that you have to file a claim in this court which is why over 2,000 companies have filed claims." (emphasis added)
2. The government requested a "stay" so that it could immediately appeal the issuance of the Refund Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the judge denied the request for a stay, but the government is expected to appeal).

Another hearing in this case is scheduled for March 6, 2026, and will be closed to the public to address outstanding issues.

On an anticipated appeal, the government is expected to challenge the CIT's authority to issue a Refund Order applying nationwide to all importers, rather than only to the parties before the court, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CASA. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has not yet ruled on this specific issue, its earlier decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, 149 F.4th 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – which held the IEEPA tariffs unlawful and was later affirmed by the Supreme Court – vacated the CIT's earlier nationwide injunction against the tariffs. The Federal Circuit instructed that, on remand, the CIT should "reevaluate the propriety of granting" such broad relief in light of CASA, which had been issued in the interim.

Accordingly, it remains unclear whether the Federal Circuit will accept the CIT's position that it is not subject to the restrictions on universal injunctions discussed in CASA. The Federal Circuit has previously expressed skepticism about the CIT's authority to grant such broad relief.

Takeaways for Importers Affected by IEEPA Tariffs

There are many actions the government may take to slow down its issuance of IEEPA tariff refunds, including 1) appealing the Refund Order, 2) delaying providing operational guidance at CBP, 3) extending liquidation periods or 4) delaying the processing of refunds.

In all events, CBP is not expected to promptly comply with the terms of the Refund Order. Two days after the Refund Order was released, Brandon Lord, executive director of CBP's Trade Programs Directorate, filed a declaration with the CIT highlighting the practical and technical difficulties that he claims will make CBP incapable of complying with the Refund Order and noting, among other things, that it is "impossible" for CBP to "immediately prevent any additional entries from liquidating without IEEPA duties." However, the declaration also noted that CBP has been considering how to make the refund process more efficient and proposed a system whereby an importer would submit a declaration identifying entries for which IEEPA tariffs were collected, which CBP would validate and verify before processing the refund, with all refunds owed to an importer being aggregated. The declaration claims this modified system would save "4 million hours" compared to the manual processes that would otherwise be required and that "is making all possible efforts to have this new ACE functionality ready for use in 45 days."

Given the government's earlier-stated position that refunds are available only to parties that have filed lawsuits at the CIT, the expectation that the government will seek to appeal the Refund Order and possibility that CBP may delay implementation, Holland & Knight continues to recommend that importers file lawsuits at the CIT to secure and preserve their refund rights, particularly as entries continue to liquidate.

Timing is also a consideration that will impact how importers may be able to seek refunds. The Supreme Court's decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump becomes final on March 17, 2026.

Typically, to recover unlawfully collected duties, an importer must first file a protest with CBP. If CBP denies the protest, the importer may seek relief at the CIT under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). In December 2025, however, the CIT held that importers were not required to first file a protest before bringing a lawsuit under Section 1581(a) when challenging the legality or constitutionality of the tariffs. That ruling applied while the Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources was still pending.

Once the Supreme Court's decision becomes final, however, the legality of the IEEPA tariffs will likely no longer be in dispute. As a result, protests with CBP may become the primary mechanism for seeking refunds, and importers may again be required to file a protest before bringing a case in the CIT under Section 1581(a).

Conclusion

Even if CBP's protest procedures or other administrative mechanisms become available, the refund process may remain difficult. In a written response to a question from the CIT about whether refunds will include interest, CBP stated that for entries entitled to refunds, it will require "a review period to ensure no violation of other Customs laws and no other duties, taxes, or fees are owed (e.g., antidumping duties, Section 301 duties, Section 232 duties, etc.)."

Accordingly, importers seeking refunds through administrative processes should be prepared for delays and additional scrutiny.

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.