Search

Supreme Court Opens $166B IEEPA Tariff Refund Process

CBP launched the CAPE portal on April 20, 2026, enabling importers to seek refunds of IEEPA tariffs invalidated by the Supreme Court's February 20, 2026 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287. The government owes an estimated $166 billion to approximately 330,000 importers, with the outstanding balance accruing approximately $650 million in interest monthly. Refunds are not automatic; only importers of record are eligible to apply, and approved applications are estimated to take 60 to 90 days to process.

United States v. Lewis-Langston - ACCA Enhancement Harmless Error

The Fourth Circuit affirmed a defendant's 200-month ACCA-enhanced sentence for felon-in-possession of a firearm, finding that the district court erred under Erlinger v. United States by deciding at sentencing whether the defendant's three prior violent felonies were committed on different occasions. The court held this error was harmless because the defendant received adequate notice of potential ACCA exposure in his plea agreement and plea colloquy, did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, and did not meaningfully contest the accuracy of his presentence report establishing the predicate offenses occurred on different dates. The court applied the harmless-error framework from United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87 (4th Cir. 2024), finding the evidence supporting the different-occasions finding was exceptionally strong.

District of Columbia v. R.W. - Reasonable Suspicion

The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Court of Appeals in District of Columbia v. R.W., holding that Officer Vanterpool had reasonable suspicion to stop R.W. based on the totality of circumstances: a late-night dispatch about a suspicious vehicle, two passengers fleeing upon seeing police, and the driver backing up without closing the open door. The Court found the D.C. Court of Appeals erred by 'excis[ing]' the radio dispatch and companions' flight from its analysis, which is incompatible with the totality-of-circumstances test required by Fourth Amendment precedent.

Supreme Court Upholds Terrorism Act 2000 Section 12(1A) Proportionality

In R v ABJ [2026] UKSC 8 the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the compatibility with Article 10 ECHR of section 12(1A) Terrorism Act 2000, as inserted by the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. The Court ruled the offence of expressing support for a proscribed organisation is not disproportionate when properly construed. The provision requires proof that a person expressed support knowing it was supportive of the organisation and was reckless as to whether the person to whom the expression was directed would be encouraged to support it.