Importers' Path to Recover IEEPA Tariffs After Supreme Court Ruling

JD Supra Trade Law

Published March 6th, 2026

Detected March 7th, 2026

Summary

A recent article discusses the implications of a Supreme Court ruling invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Importers must take affirmative legal action, such as filing suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade, to recover paid tariffs, as refunds are not automatic.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, declared tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unlawful, finding that IEEPA does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. However, the ruling did not mandate automatic refunds for tariffs already collected. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) cannot issue refunds without separate legal action, and administrative protests filed with CBP are generally considered futile in this context.

Importers seeking to recover unlawfully collected IEEPA tariffs must file suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) to utilize its residual jurisdiction. Failure to timely file such a suit risks forfeiting refund rights, even though the tariffs have been invalidated. Recent court developments indicate a move towards resolving these refund cases, but individual action remains necessary to preserve recovery options.

What to do next

Review past IEEPA tariff payments.
Consult legal counsel regarding filing suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade to seek recovery of paid tariffs.
File suit within applicable statutes of limitations to preserve refund rights.

Source document (simplified)

March 6, 2026

Importers Face an Uncertain Path to Recover IEEPA Tariffs After Supreme Court Ruling

Anne Harvey, Richard Johnson Phelps Dunbar + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X Send Embed

Importers who paid tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) may assume that a U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating those tariffs automatically triggers refunds. It does not. Recent litigation confirms that recovering unlawfully collected IEEPA tariffs requires affirmative legal action, and timing matters.

Understanding the post‑decision landscape is essential for companies seeking to preserve refund rights.

The Supreme Court Invalidates IEEPA Tariffs But Stops Short of Ordering Refunds
In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, concluding that tariff‑setting falls within Congress’ exclusive taxing authority under Article I of the Constitution. As a result, tariffs imposed pursuant to IEEPA were declared unlawful.

Notably, however, the Court did not order the government to refund tariffs already collected. That omission has placed the burden on importers to pursue recovery through separate legal proceedings.

Refunds Are Not Automatic
Neither IEEPA nor the Supreme Court’s decision provide a mechanism for automatic repayment of unlawfully collected tariffs. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) lacks independent authority to issue refunds based solely on a judicial declaration that tariffs were imposed without statutory authorization.

Absent further action, importers who paid IEEPA tariffs remain out of pocket—even after those tariffs have been invalidated.

Why Filing a CBP Protest is Not Enough
In most tariff disputes, importers challenge CBP decisions by filing administrative protests. That process does not work in the IEEPA context.

Courts have recognized that CBP’s role in collecting IEEPA tariffs is purely ministerial. Because CBP has no discretion to assess the legality of presidential tariff actions, it cannot grant relief based on claims that the tariffs themselves were unlawful. As a result, administrative protests challenging the legality of IEEPA tariffs are generally futile and do not provide an adequate remedy.

The Court of International Trade Is the Proper Forum
To recover IEEPA tariffs already paid, importers must file suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). Courts have consistently held that these claims fall under the CIT’s “residual jurisdiction,” which covers challenges to tariff exactions where no other statutory remedy is available.

Through this process, the CIT has authority to:

Declare the tariffs unlawful
Order CBP to reliquidate affected entries
Direct refunds of duties collected, with interest where permitted by law Critically, this relief is available only to importers who affirmatively bring suit.

Litigation is Necessary to Preserve Refund Rights
In response to the wave of IEEPA refund actions, the Court of International Trade has issued administrative stays while higher‑court proceedings conclude. These stays do not resolve refund entitlement and do not eliminate the need for individual actions.

Importers who fail to timely file suit risk forfeiting their ability to recover tariffs—even though the underlying tariffs have been declared invalid.

Recent Court Development Signals Forward Movement
On March 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the government’s request to further delay proceedings in the IEEPA tariff refund cases. The federal government had sought additional time following the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the tariffs, but the court declined to pause the litigation. As a result, the cases are returning to the U.S. Court of International Trade for further proceedings.

While this development does not create an automatic right to refunds, it signals that the courts are moving ahead with resolving importer‑initiated refund claims. Importers that have not yet taken action should be mindful that recovery still requires affirmative litigation and compliance with applicable statutes of limitation.

What Importers Should Do Now
Companies that paid IEEPA tariffs should evaluate their exposure and act promptly. Key steps include:

Identifying entries subject to IEEPA tariffs
Assessing applicable statutes of limitation
Determining whether litigation is required to preserve claims
Coordinating with trade counsel on filing strategy Early action remains the most effective way to protect refund rights in this evolving legal environment.

Send Print Report

Latest Posts

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.

Written by:

Phelps Dunbar Contact + Follow Anne Harvey + Follow Richard Johnson + 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:

Constitutional Challenges + Follow Court of International Trade + Follow Customs and Border Protection + Follow Imports + Follow International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) + Follow Lack of Authority + Follow Learning Resources Inc v Trump + Follow Litigation Strategies + Follow Refunds + Follow SCOTUS + Follow Statutory Interpretation + Follow Tariffs + Follow Trump Administration + Follow Trump v VOS Selections + Follow Administrative Agency + Follow Antitrust & Trade Regulation + Follow Constitutional + Follow Elections & Politics + Follow International Trade + Follow more less

Phelps Dunbar 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