By Meghann C. T. Supino
In 2025, President Trump began using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, which caused many businesses to scramble as the countries involved and amount of the tariffs were in regular flux. But the Supreme Court recently declared that the President had no authority to issue tariffs under IEEPA, halting collection of the 2025 tariffs and raising questions about whether the approximately $166 billion collected under that authority would be refunded to importers. On March 4, 2026, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) began to answer this important question.
The Supreme Court’s Rejection of IEEPA Tariffs
The Supreme Court issued its long-awaited 6-3 decision on February 20, striking down all tariffs that relied on the President’s authority under the IEEPA. The Court held that the “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs” because there was no clear congressional authorization giving the President “the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope” (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287, slip op. (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026)). The majority largely based its decision on the fact that tariffs are a tax on the American people, and that only Congress has the authority to tax unless that authority is very clearly and narrowly delegated, which the IEEPA failed to do.
The ruling applied to many—but not all—of the tariffs imposed (and frequently adjusted) by President Trump’s administration starting in 2025, but it left in place tariffs imposed during his first administration and some other similar tariffs. The majority of the invalidated tariffs are under two main categories: (1) those justified on the basis of addressing the alleged fentanyl trafficking crisis against Canada, Mexico, and China (commonly referred to as the “fentanyl tariffs”), and (2) those justified on the basis of the alleged global trade deficit (commonly referred to as the “reciprocal tariffs”). The President also imposed tariffs under the IEEPA on countries importing Venezuelan oil, countries doing trade with Cuba and Iran, certain goods from Brazil, and goods from India.
The ruling did not address, and thus left in place, tariffs imposed under other statutes, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (such as those on steel, aluminum, and, more recently, autos and auto parts), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (targeting specific Chinese goods), and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (the authority under which President Trump is imposing new tariffs).
The ruling failed to mention whether refunds were available and under what procedure, and it also omitted discussion of whether trade deals struck in response to the IEEPA tariffs would proceed, leaving importers with questions that they hoped the CIT or Customs and Border Protection (Customs) would answer.
The CIT’s Clear Directive to Customs: Refund Now
In a three-page order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, one of the many thousands of cases filed recently seeking refunds of the nullified tariffs, Judge Richard K. Eaton gave importers the first answers, ordering Customs to do the following:
- For “any and all” unliquidated entries (entries for which tariffs and duties have not been finally computed by Customs), Customs must now liquidate (process) those entries without charging the importer for the IEEPA tariffs; and
- For any previously liquidated entries “for which liquidation is not final,” Customs must reliquidate these entries without the IEEPA tariffs. Presumably this applies to entries that have been liquidated but for which the 180-day deadline to file a protest has not yet passed.
This Order applies to all such entries, regardless of whether the importer of record had filed an action in the CIT. Judge Eaton reasoned that he alone had been appointed to hear the tariff refund cases by the Chief Judge of the CIT, and there was no danger of a contrary ruling in the remaining cases within the CIT.
Judge Eaton further discussed in issuing this order, and his order confirms, that he believes that Customs has orderly processes in place that can be used to correctly account for refunds without a resulting “mess” that Justice Kavanaugh predicted in his dissenting opinion in Learning Resources. Judge Eaton further signaled that the flood of litigation was more likely to lead to the anticipated chaos than allowing Customs to engage its prescribed procedures.
While this news was welcome to many—especially those importers who have taken a patient approach and waited to file suit pending additional guidance—the brief order leaves questions in its wake that will need to be clarified and answered moving forward. In particular, importers are waiting to see whether finally liquidated entries (those for which the protest period has expired) will be eligible for refunds. Importers reviewing their entries from early 2025 are finding that a number of them were liquidated in less than a quarter of the standard time for liquidation, with protest deadlines expiring long before Learning Resources reached the Supreme Court. Judge Eaton’s order does not address these entries.
When Will Refunds Start?
Not anytime soon, most likely.
Already, Customs has pushed back on this broad order of the CIT. In a court filing on March 6 in the Atmos case, Customs issued a declaration claiming that the court’s order could not be implemented given the volume of entries at issue and the technical limitations of the system under which the refunds are to be issued. The technology automatically liquidates certain entries, Customs argues, and the technology does not currently allow them to reverse course on the 20.1 million entries that remain unliquidated and subject to the court’s order. This, along with needing to calculate the necessary interest on overpaid amounts, makes the order impossible to implement, Customs claims.
This claim is not unexpected. Though the administration represented to the court in late 2025 that it would issue refunds if the Supreme Court invalidated the IEEPA tariffs, since that ruling, the White House has stated that they would fight the refunds in court. The order is expected to be appealed and likely paused in the interim.
Tariffs: The Long Game
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, two patterns have emerged.
First, President Trump has sent a clear message that tariffs are here to stay during his presidency. Within hours of the ruling, President Trump had signed an executive order implementing 10 percent tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2132). These temporary tariffs are limited to no more than 150 days unless modified by Congress and have several categories of exclusions, such as certain agricultural products, electronics, and pharmaceuticals.
While it is possible that President Trump will seek an extension of these tariffs before the end of 150 days, it is more likely that the White House will seek to impose tariffs in the long run under more familiar authorities, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Several investigations under these statutes are now underway.
Second, President Trump will continue to have to fight for his tariffs in court. Hours after the Supreme Court ruling on February 20, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging certain tariffs imposed under Section 301 during President Trump’s first term appealed their case to the Supreme Court. Then, on March 5, a lawsuit was filed by 24 states in the CIT alleging that the Section 122 tariffs imposed on February 20 are outside of the President’s authority. Also on March 5, a case filed in May of 2025—challenging the elimination of the de minimis shipment exemption on low-value imports from China—was allowed to move forward (it had been suspended pending resolution of Learning Resources).
Practical Steps: Don’t Panic and Don’t Waive Your Rights
So, what should importers and other businesses affected by the tariffs do right now?
- Know your deadlines: Importers should inventory their entries to ensure they know entry dates, liquidation dates, and protest deadlines for all entries on which IEEPA-related tariffs were assessed;
- File protests: Until Customs implements the order, importers should preserve their rights by filing protests within the 180-day time period following liquidation, if still open, and file appeals to the CIT within 180 days if those protests are rejected;
- Review agreements and terms and conditions: Importers may be contractually required to refund purchasers that paid higher prices to cover tariffs; and
- Coordinate with counsel: Individual situations require a nuanced look at the fast-evolving situation and may require quick action in some cases.
Businesses should continue to plan for long-term tariff strategies. Ice Miller’s attorneys understand the complexities and nuances of these strategies and are ready to guide clients through this fast-developing legal environment.
For questions regarding tariff refunds or other international trade matters, please reach out to a member of Ice Miller’s Trade Enforcement and Compliance Team.
This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.