What Happened

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, affirming an August 2025 decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) that invalidated the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose certain broad-based tariffs.

On March 4, 2026, Senior Judge Richard K. Eaton of the CIT issued an order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to implement a refund process for certain unliquidated entries and certain recently liquidated entries that were assessed IEEPA duties (the “Universal Refund Order”); the order also contemplated relief beyond the parties to the litigation, referring to all “importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties.”

Two days later, however, Judge Eaton suspended the Universal Refund Order pending further proceedings after CBP represented that its systems are not currently able to process the high volume of affected entries without significant manual effort and system changes.

The Bottom Line

While the legal basis for the IEEPA tariffs has been struck down, the path to financial recovery remains procedurally complex. Importers should not assume that refunds will be issued automatically in the near term. Instead, companies must consider their options among a shifting landscape of court orders, potential challenges, and administrative hurdles.

What Options Do Companies Have?

Companies seeking IEEPA tariff refunds should evaluate the following options based on their entries, potential refund amounts, deadlines, and the certainty sought of a refund process:

• Enroll for electronic refunds and monitor for CBP notices. CBP has indicated that many importers that paid IEEPA duties have not completed the setup for ACH Refund on CBP’s online Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal. CBP has also stated that refunds will only be provided electronically through ACH Refund. Completing this administrative step is a low-cost, high-priority baseline for any recovery strategy.
  
  Companies should also closely track CBP’s Cargo Systems Messaging Service announcements for updates on how CBP intends to handle liquidation holds or manual refund processing. Historically, such guidance defines the operational mechanics for any administrative processes that may be in play.

• Monitor for an administrative refund process. The Universal Refund Order would implement an automatic and universal IEEPA tariff refund mechanism. However, it is unclear how long it will take for refunds to reach companies, or whether the Order will be implemented at all.
  
  It is uncertain whether the government will use the Universal Refund Order’s suspension until later this spring to file an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which could stay the Order until litigation is resolved. That appeal could go to the Supreme Court, which would need to address whether the Universal Refund Order is compatible with the Court’s 2025 Trump v. CASA, Inc. decision that sharply limited federal courts’ power to issue nationwide injunctions for non-parties.
  
  Even if the Universal Refund Order survives these challenges, there will likely be delay before refunds are issued. By comparison, it took four years for the Customs Service to publish a procedure implementing a similar CIT order requiring universal refunds of the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT). Customs ultimately processed approximately $730 million in HMT refunds across 100,000 claims. Given the much larger scale of IEEPA tariffs—$166 billion paid by over 330,000 importers—companies should expect that an administrative process emerging from the Universal Refund Order will take months, perhaps years, to implement.

• File litigation to preserve refund rights. The Universal Refund Order suggests a possible path to refunds for some non-parties, but its implementation remains uncertain. Companies can mitigate this risk by filing a case before the CIT.
  
  When the CIT struck down the IEEPA tariffs in August, it also issued an administrative order consolidating new cases challenging the IEEPA tariffs into a group of “New IEEPA Tariff Cases” and staying further action. That stay remains in place, and additional parties have continued to file and join the consolidated group.
  
  Becoming a “New IEEPA Tariff Case” positions companies to take advantage of stipulations that the government has made before the CIT that it will guarantee refunds, with interest, to all “current and future similarly situated plaintiffs” who have filed litigation. Conversely, the government has told the CIT that “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.”
  
  Filing will help preserve claims against applicable statutes of limitation. It may also affect the availability of interest and the timing of payment. Whether interest is available, and at what rate, can depend on the procedural posture and the legal basis for the refund. Importers should confirm how interest would apply to their specific circumstances.
  
  Finally, those who file before the CIT may see refunds sooner than those relying on administrative refunds (assuming that process emerges). Litigants who challenged the HMT in court received refunds before those that relied upon the administrative process required by the CIT.

• Take a wait-and-see approach. Some companies may prefer to monitor developments relating to the Universal Refund Order before filing litigation. This approach may reduce near-term legal spend, but it can increase the risk that deadlines expire or that refunds are later limited to litigants or to those that completed specific administrative steps.
  
  When the CIT created the “New IEEPA Tariff Cases,” it indicated that the stay would remain in place until the Supreme Court issued a final decision. With the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 decision now issued, the CIT could lift the stay. If the stay is lifted, it is unclear whether later-filed cases would be handled within the existing consolidated group and whether any government commitments on refunds would extend to later filers. As of the date of this alert, newly-filed IEEPA refund cases are still being stayed under the CIT’s standing order.
  
  For companies evaluating whether to file, a key consideration is preserving rights while developments unfold. In some circumstances, filing before the CIT lifts its stay may provide more certainty on timing and treatment, but the appropriate approach will depend on company-specific deadlines and risk tolerance.

How We Can Help

Our International Trade Controls and Litigation teams can help assess refund options and deadlines, evaluate eligibility under evolving court orders and CBP processes, and support litigation filings in the CIT as appropriate. The International Trade Controls team also provides the Hunton Tariff Tracker, which can assist companies in assessing recent tariff policies more generally.