Supreme Court Decision on Anti-Assignment of Claims Act and Tariff Refunds
Summary
The Supreme Court has issued a decision clarifying the application of the Anti-Assignment of Claims Act to tariff refund claims. This ruling impacts how businesses and investors can pursue refunds from the U.S. government, potentially altering established recovery strategies.
What changed
The Supreme Court's decision addresses the scope and applicability of the Anti-Assignment of Claims Act of 1940 concerning tariff refund claims. The Act, originally designed to simplify government dealings, broadly defines 'assignment' to include transfers of claims or interests in claims against the U.S. Government. This ruling provides critical legal analysis on how this Act limits the ability to assign such claims, particularly for those investing in tariff refunds, and clarifies the conditions under which the government must recognize such assignments.
Businesses and investors involved in tariff refunds must now re-evaluate their strategies in light of this Supreme Court precedent. The decision necessitates a detailed understanding of the Act's limitations and potential waivers under applicable regulations. Companies should consult legal counsel to assess how this ruling affects their ability to recover tariff payments and to ensure compliance with the clarified legal framework governing assignment of claims against the government.
What to do next
- Review legal counsel regarding the implications of the Supreme Court's decision on tariff refund claim assignments.
- Assess current and future tariff refund recovery strategies in light of the clarified Anti-Assignment Act application.
- Consult relevant regulations and case law to ensure compliance with assignment requirements.
Source document (simplified)
March 27, 2026
Tariff Refund Claims and the Anti-Assignment of Claims Act
Harry Clark, Raniero D'Aversa, Evan Hollander, Robert Loeb, Jeanine McGuinness, Daniel Rubens, Marc Shapiro Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X Send Embed
Visit our Tariff Watch resource center to track the latest legal and regulatory developments, recovery strategies, and potential shifts in U.S. trade policy following the Supreme Court’s tariff decision.
The Assignment of Claims Act of 1940, also known as the Anti-Assignment Act, has its origins in an earlier act from the 19th century and was designed to “alleviate the government from the burden of determining with whom it must deal.” Diamond v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 689 F. Supp. 163, 167 (E.D.N.Y. 1988). The Act defines “assignment” broadly, to include “a transfer or assignment of any part of a claim against the United States Government or of an interest in the claim,” as well as “the authorization to receive payment for any part of the claim.” 31 U.S.C. § 3727(a)(1)-(2). It imposes certain requirements for the federal government to recognize the assignment of claims against the government.
Given the broad text, some questions have been raised regarding how the Act may apply to those investing in tariff refunds. The answer to that question requires a detailed legal analysis of the history and precedent which has limited the application of the Act, who may enforce it and when. It also requires an examination of the applicable regulations and whether they waive the Act under certain conditions.
[View source.]
Related Posts
- CBP Delivers Progress Report on IEEPA Tariff Refund System
- Supreme Court Tariff Decision: What Businesses and Investors Need to Know
- CBP Outlines IEEPA Tariff Refund Process that May Be Operational as Soon as in 45 Days
Latest Posts
- NRC Proposed Fusion Rule Further Clarifies Path for Commercial Deployment
- Beyond the NRC: Deploying Nuclear Reactors under DOE and DOW Oversight Authority 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.
©
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Written by:
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Contact + Follow Harry Clark + Follow Raniero D'Aversa + Follow Evan Hollander + Follow Robert Loeb + Follow Jeanine McGuinness + Follow Daniel Rubens + Follow Marc Shapiro + Follow more less
PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA
- ✔ Increased readership
- ✔ Actionable analytics
- ✔ Ongoing writing guidance Join more than 70,000 authors publishing their insights on JD Supra
Published In:
Anti-Assignment Clauses + Follow Court of International Trade + Follow Customs and Border Protection + Follow Enforcement + Follow International Trade + Follow Investment + Follow Investors + Follow Refunds + Follow SCOTUS + Follow Statutory Interpretation + Follow Tariffs + Follow US Trade Policies + Follow Administrative Agency + Follow Government Contracting + Follow International Trade + Follow more less
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 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
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Trade & Sanctions alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when JD Supra Trade Law publishes new changes.