Importers seeking refunds for tariffs, imposts and duties unlawfully assessed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) typically sue under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), which grants the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, opening the door for billions of dollars in potential refunds for duties collected by the U.S. Government since early 2025.
Even before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, a number of companies had filed lawsuits against the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) in the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) requesting the court find the IEEPA tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration illegal. The various plaintiffs asked the court to enjoin the CBP from imposing additional IEEPA duties. They also asked the court to grant them a full refund on the IEEPA duties previously paid, and refunds of those they will continue to pay while the lawsuits are pending. The plaintiffs further asked the court to grant a preliminary injunction suspending the liquidation of entries subject to the tariffs.
Your Company’s Options to Seek Refunds of Unlawful Tariffs
The Supreme Court has since struck down the tariffs as unlawful, but chose not to explain how refunds may be obtained or require the CBP to establish a process for obtaining such refunds. Without any guidance from the Supreme Court it is not entirely clear what an importer must do to obtain a refund of unlawfully assessed tariffs. The task of fashioning remedies under the law is now left to the CIT. Given the lingering uncertainty – including whether relief must be sought before liquidation and whether a protest is required – aggrieved importers may wish to consider several options potentially available to them under federal law.
Seeking Refunds of Unliquidated Entries
First, for unliquidated entries importers can file suit under 28 U.S.C. section 1581(i) and immediately seek a preliminary injunction prohibiting liquidation. An unliquidated entry under federal tariff law is a customs entry for imported goods that has not yet undergone the final computation of duties by CBP, meaning the duties paid are still estimates. These estimates allow importers to file post-summary corrections (“PSC”) to correct duty, classification or valuation issues. Section 1581(i) grants the CIT jurisdiction over civil actions related to tariff matters, such as those arising under IEEPA. This includes the authority to grant preliminary injunctions. The reason a party may wish to file suit on unliquidated entries is due to the possibility the CIT might not be able to order reliquidation or refunds on certain liquidated entries. While the stronger view is the CIT can order a refund after liquidation, the more conservative approach would be to file suit and seek a preliminary injunction preventing CBP from issuing any final orders.
The legal theory under which the CIT might not be able to order re-liquidations or refunds on certain liquidated entries stems in part from the court’s decision in In re Section 301 Cases, 524 F.Supp.3d 1355 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021). There the government argued, in part, that the CIT did not have the authority to issue refunds for certain liquidated entries related to Section 310 China tariffs. The CIT did not directly address whether it had such authority, but did state as follows:
Thus, despite the broad statutory language granting the Court authority to order whatever relief is appropriate, the Court of Appeals has consistently refrained from relying on that language in finding the CIT has authority to order reliquidation or refunds in [Section] 1581(i) cases and has raised doubts about the CIT’s authority to do so. It may be that on appeal the Court of Appeals will make clear that 28 U.S.C. sections 1585 and 2643 empower the CIT to ‘enter a money judgment … against the United States in any civil action commenced under section 1581’ for the return of unlawfully collected duties, 28 U.S.C. § 2643(a)(1), or ‘may … order any other form of relief including reliquidation, Id. § 2643(c)(1), but, until it does, we must conclude that liquidation will result in irreparable economic harm. See In re Section 301 Cases, 524 F.Supp.3d at 1365-1366.
The better legal position is that the CIT can order a refund after liquidation. In fact, the court in In re Section 301 Cases stated that, “the Government’s right to make a good faith challenge to the Court’s power should not leave Plaintiffs without a remedy should the exactions ultimately be determined to have been unlawful. The absence of a remedy for an unlawful exaction is the definition of inequity.” See Id., at 1371; see generally Shinyei Corp. of America v. United States, 355 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Although the better view is that the CIT can order refunds on liquidated IEEPA entries, the issue has never been squarely addressed by the Federal Circuit of the Supreme Court, which means there is a risk a court could find the CIT has no such authority. That is indeed the reason some importers have been filing suit. One plaintiff that recently filed suit stated that, “the CIT and the Federal Circuit have cautioned that an importer may lack the legal right to recover refunds on duties for entries that have liquidated, even where the underlying legality of a tariff is later found to be unlawful.” See Complaint ¶49, Kawasaki Motors Mfr. Corp., U.S.A. v. CBP, No. 25-00264 )(C’t Int’l Trade filed Nov. 13, 2025). In other cases, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has responded to such motions by stipulating that post-liquidation relief would be granted, which might be all the legal comfort an importer needs.
Seeking Refunds of Liquidated Entries
Second, for entries that have liquidated importers can file protests on these liquidations under 19 U.S.C. section 1514. A liquidated entry under federal tariff law is CBP’s final, official determination of the duties, taxes, and fees owed on imported goods. It marks the closing of an entry, confirming the final classification, valuation, and duty rates, usually occurring automatically 314 days after the entry date. Protests must be filed within 180 days of liquidation. Assuming post-liquidation relief is available, another uncertainty is whether a protest must be filed. Some legal authority indicates the answer may be no. See United States v. U.S. Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360, 365-66 (1998).
Nonetheless, because the issue is not entirely clear, and because there is little downside, importers should consider filing protests on any liquidated entries. Note that filing protests may not suffice because under 19 U.S.C. section 1514(a) CBP can only rule on decisions of the Customs Service. In reviewing protests, the CBP could take the position that collecting tariffs is considered an administrative task that they have been ordered to undertake and not a decision of the Customs Service. If so, protests could be denied as non-protestable actions. The U.S. Supreme Court adopted that reasoning in finding certain assessments not protestable in U.S. Shoe Corp.
If protests are denied, importers can file suit on those entries under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). This statute permits importers to file suit to challenge the denial of a protest within 180 days of the denial. This would permit the CIT to review the substantive claims made in the protest and further protect an importer’s rights to future refunds. It’s reasonable to conclude that importers who did not preemptively file suit, and instead waited for the Supreme Court to rule, should still be able to receive refunds. Since this is not guaranteed companies should consider the more conservative approach and file suit before entries have liquidated as many other companies have already done.
Ultimately, the decision of whether to file a lawsuit to recover unlawfully imposed tariffs requires weighing several factors, including (1) the number of entries that are expected to liquidate and over what period of time, (2) the amounts of money at issue on entries that liquidated before the Supreme Court ruled, (3) the costs of filing a suit in the CIT, and (4) the possibility of adverse media coverage that may follow.
Key Legal Takeaways
- The primary statutory vehicle for challenging IEEPA tariffs and seeking recovery is 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), often referred to as the CIT’s residual jurisdiction.
- The CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions against the U.S. arising out of laws providing for tariffs, duties, or other import-related revenue.
- The CIT has held that it possesses explicit authority to order reliquidations and refunds when the government has unlawfully exacted duties.
- As an alternative, importers may also attempt to use the standard administrative protest process under 19 U.S.C. § 1514. Some court decisions, however, have held that IEEPA collections are ministerial and not subject to protest, making a section 1581(i) lawsuit the more reliable path for many companies.
Key Deadlines and Limitations
Importers must act within specific statutory timeframes to preserve their right to restitution.
(1) Under 28 U.S.C. section 1581(i), lawsuits filed under this residual jurisdiction must generally be filed within 2 years after the cause of action first accrues. This is typically calculated from the date the tariffs were paid.
(2) If your company chooses to pursue the administrative protest route for liquidated entries, a formal protest must be filed with CBP within 180 days of liquidation. Failure to protest within this time period usually makes the liquidation final and conclusive, potentially barring later judicial recourse.
Current Status of the Refund Process
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Learning Resources, the mechanism for actually receiving funds remains complex and unclear.
(1) There are no automatic refunds because the Supreme Court did not order automatic reimbursement or establish a specific remedial framework. It only declared the tariffs unlawful. The ball is in the CIT’s court and the CBP’s court.
(2) Over 2,000 companies, including major retailers like Costco and FedEx, have already filed protective lawsuits in the CIT under section 1581(i) to ensure they do not lose their refund rights while administrative procedures are being clarified and implemented.
(3) Only the importer of record—the entity that actually paid the duty to the government—generally has standing to sue for a refund.
About Finkel Law Group
Finkel Law Group P.C., with offices in San Francisco, Oakland and Washington D.C., has more than 30 years of experience assisting clients seek refunds and recover monies unlawfully exacted by the federal government and several state governments in both administrative and judicial forums. When you need intelligent, insightful, conscientious, and cost-effective legal counsel to help your company recover funds unlawfully exacted from your company by the federal government or a state government, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, please contact us at (415) 252-9600, (510) 344-6601, (771) 202-8801, or info@finkellawgroup.com to speak with one of our attorneys about your matter.
