March 5, 2026

Navigating IEEPA Tariff Refunds – The Long Road Ahead and Why Preparation and Timing Matter

Jon Barooshian, David Shapiro Saul Ewing LLP + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X Send Embed

The Supreme Court in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, decided on Friday, February 20, 2026, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") did not provide the Trump Administration with authority to impose reciprocal tariffs on imports or the retaliatory tariffs specifically imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, framed the issue for decision, the President's assertion, and their decision succinctly:

The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it. IEEPA's grant of authority to "regulate . . . importation" falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word "regulate" to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power. We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.
What the Court did not clarify is how much the decision will affect the Administration's tariff policy, since, in addition to IEEPA, several other statutes grant tariff authority. For example, the Smoot-Hawley Act authorizes tariffs of up to 50 percent against countries that discriminate against American goods or impose unreasonable barriers to trade. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate unfair foreign trade practices and impose tariffs or other import restrictions. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes the President to restrict imports (including by proclamation and imposing duties) when the Secretary of Commerce finds imports threaten national security. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the U.S. President to impose temporary "safeguard" trade restrictions—such as tariffs, quotas, or trade agreements—on fair-traded imports that surge and cause serious injury to a domestic industry.

The Court's decision also did not answer what is likely to be the most important question to those who directly, or indirectly, paid the tariff: whether and how refunds will be issued for the estimated $175 billion or more in IEEPA tariff revenues collected by the federal government. The majority opinion did not specify whether refunds must be issued, nor did it prescribe any mechanism for reimbursement (a practical challenge highlighted by the dissent). The Court, however, made it clear that the only judicial forum for recovery is the Court of International Trade ("CIT").

The CIT recently spoke on the issue of securing a refund. On December 15, 2025, the CIT held in AGS Company Automotive Solutions v. United States that it "has the explicit power to order reliquidation and refunds where the government has unlawfully exacted duties." However, before filing suit at the CIT, an importer seeking a refund must exhaust its administrative remedies through a protest of a liquidated tariff or a post-summary correction for tariffs that have not been liquidated yet.

The primary mechanism for seeking tariff refunds from CBP is the administrative protest procedure established under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 which requires the importer, consignee, or surety to file a formal protest within 180 days after the tariff has been liquidated, i.e., CBP has already determined the amount of the tariff, duty, and fees. The protest must contain specific information including a specific description of the merchandise and the nature of each objection and the reasons in support. CBP must review and act on protests within two years from the date the protest was filed, however, importers may request accelerated disposition under 19 C.F.R. § 174.22, which requires CBP to act within 30 days or the protest is deemed denied. For unliquidated, or "open," entries, an importer should submit a post-summary correction to remove IEEPA tariffs. Once CBP denies a protest or the protest is deemed denied because of CBP's failure to make a decision, the importer then has 180 days to initiate an action at CIT.

Downstream buyers, such as retailers and distributors who purchased products from an importer, will likely be looking for their refund too. However, only the person who paid the tariff can make a claim for a refund from the government, so a downstream buyer that has an agreement with an importer containing clauses such as a duty drawback, duty sharing, or price adjustment may be in luck. Others, whose contracts are not explicit on the issue, may still have claims such as unjust enrichment or breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing amongst others.

Both downstream buyers and importers should gather information in support of their claim sooner rather than later to take advantage of any "first-to-file" priority at CBP and CIT and minimize the risk of any Congressional approval of the President's tariff scheme. Importers should gather all information about the merchandise subject to the IEEPA tariff including proof of payment, CBP Form 7501 entry summaries and liquidation notices, bills of lading, packing lists, and any correspondence with CBP. Downstream buyers should review their agreements with importers as well as any communications with the importers and analyze whether they have a claim to claw back the tariff paid to the importer.

Send Print Report

Latest Posts

• Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Delaware General Corporation Law Section 144 Amendments
• Navigating IEEPA Tariff Refunds – The Long Road Ahead and Why Preparation and Timing Matter
• Illinois Appellate Court Narrows Third-Party BIPA Liability
• Hart-Scott-Rodino — Litigation Challenging the New Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Regime
• Fourth Circuit Lifts Injunction on DEI Executive Orders See more »

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.

©
Saul Ewing LLP

Written by:

Saul Ewing LLP Contact + Follow Jon Barooshian + Follow David Shapiro + Follow more less

What do you want from legal thought leadership?

Please take our short survey – your perspective helps to shape how firms create relevant, useful content that addresses your needs:

Take the survey now »

Published In:

Court of International Trade + Follow Customs and Border Protection + Follow Importers + Follow Imports + Follow International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) + Follow International Trade + Follow SCOTUS + Follow Section 232 + Follow Section 301 + Follow Tariffs + Follow US Trade Policies + Follow Administrative Agency + Follow General Business + Follow International Trade + Follow more less

Saul Ewing LLP on:

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Sign Up Log in ** By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.* - hide - hide