Summary
In an order issued on March 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the “CIT”) stated that “all importers of record” who paid IEEPA-based duties are “entitled to the benefit of the [U.S. Supreme Court’s] Learning Resources decision,” in which the Supreme Court held that the Trump Administration’s tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) were not authorized under that law. The CIT therefore ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to determine final tariff assessments for many customs entries “without regard to” the IEEPA duties. The CIT did not conclusively resolve whether and when importers will receive any funds, and the Government signaled that it will challenge the CIT’s order.
The Order
On March 4, 2026, the CIT conducted a hearing in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, in which plaintiff, a Tennessee-based company that imports products for its filters and filtration services, had sought tariff refunds following the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24–1287 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026) holding IEEPA tariffs unlawful. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Richard K. Eaton issued a three-page order addressing the treatment of customs entries for which IEEPA-based tariffs had been declared.[1] As an initial matter, the order declared that “all importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties” have a right to benefit from the Supreme Court’s recent decision. The CIT directed CBP to liquidate (i.e., make a final tariff assessment for) all such unliquidated entries “without regard to the IEEPA duties.” This order effectively instructed CBP to decline to assess IEEPA tariffs on any entries for which initial estimated duties have been paid but that have not yet been finally liquidated (i.e., had their final duties assessed).[2] Under U.S. customs laws, liquidation typically occurs after a period of 314 days following the entry of the goods. After liquidation, importers have 180 days to file a protest before the liquidation is considered “final and conclusive upon all persons.”[3]
In the order, Judge Eaton also ruled that the CIT maintains authority to issue universal, nationwide injunctions relating to tariff refunds. Judge Eaton did so by distinguishing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., in which the Supreme Court held that federal courts lack the inherent equitable power to issue universal injunctions.[4] Judge Eaton reasoned that CASA does not directly apply to the CIT or to the case at hand because (i) the Customs Courts Act of 1980 grants the CIT “national geographic jurisdiction,” and (ii) the CIT maintains exclusive jurisdiction over tariff-related claims.[5] Judge Eaton further explained that, per the instructions of the Chief Judge of the CIT, Judge Eaton will be the only CIT judge to hear cases pertaining to IEEPA-based tariff refunds, meaning he alone will handle the court’s adjudication of such claims. Judge Eaton noted that “to do otherwise” would “deny importers who have filed suit the efficient resolution of their claims” and “deny importers who have not filed suit the benefit of the [Supreme Court’s recent IEEPA tariff] decision.”
Government Response
The Government has signaled that it will challenge the order. President Trump had previously said that the issue of refunds could be litigated for several years. Consistent with the President’s statement, the Government during oral argument at the CIT hearing maintained: “It is not our position that every single importer will get a refund. Our position is that you have to file a claim in this court.” Judge Eaton said he would hold a court conference on Friday to help resolve this point, and expressed his view that not all importers should need to come to court for duties unlawfully charged. The Government confirmed in a written submission that it will pay interest on any refunds it is ultimately required to provide.[6] The Government also indicated that if it files an appeal of Judge Eaton’s order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, it will ask the appellate court to stay the CIT’s order. If any such stay were to be granted, then the order would not take immediate effect.
Implications
Judge Eaton’s order signals that the CIT intends to adjudicate IEEPA tariff refund claims on a universal, nationwide basis. Notably, the order references both importers “who have filed suit” and those “who have not” as deserving the “benefit” of the Supreme Court’s Learning Resources decision—signaling the possibility that the CIT may issue additional rulings requiring CBP to issue refunds to importers who paid IEEPA tariffs regardless of whether those importers have commenced lawsuits to recover such amounts.
Nevertheless, much uncertainty remains over the likelihood and timing of IEEPA tariff refunds. Based on the Government’s statements at the CIT hearing, it is possible that the Government may seek to resist or contest importers’ efforts to claim refunds on a case-by-case basis, at least in the short term. Moreover, the Government could appeal this and future rulings of the CIT, which likely would mean that it could take many months before importers gain final clarity as to the resolution of their claims and the timing of any refunds. Companies with an interest in these matters—including importers who paid IEEPA tariffs and other parties who purchased or loaned against, or may consider purchasing or loaning against, the right to receive tariff refund proceeds from such importers—should pay close attention to further developments in the CIT and in the other federal courts.
[1] Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-01259, Dkt. No. 21.
[2] See 19 C.F.R. § 159.1 (“Liquidation means the final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption or drawback entries.”).
[3] 19 U.S.C. § 1514. The order also states that “Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final shall be reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties.” This likely refers to liquidated entries that have been protested or are within the 180-day period in which a protest may be filed.
[4] 606 U.S. 831, 841 (2025).
[5] See Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24–1287 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026); 28 U.S.C. § 1581.
[6] See Atmus Filtration, No. 26-01259, Dkt. No. 19.