Two Weeks After SCOTUS Ruling: Courts Push CBP to Move Forward with IEEPA Tariff Refunds

Two weeks on from the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating President Trump’s tariffs, importers still do not have clarity on how to claim tariff refunds. However, there has been some encouraging movement from the lower courts and potentially from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

On Monday, March 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump issued a mandate returning the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The Federal Circuit issued the order over objections from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which argued that the court should allow 90 days to give the “political branches an opportunity to consider options.” The Federal Circuit’s action allowed the CIT to begin taking steps to implement the decision invalidating the tariffs and to consider the process for providing importers with refunds. 

The CIT acted quickly after receiving the mandate from the Federal Circuit, ruling in a related case, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, that refunds were due to importers and directing CBP to take action.

On March 4, in a somewhat unexpected order issued from the bench during a motion hearing (on a motion that was actually withdrawn prior to the hearing), CIT Senior Judge Richard Eaton found that all importers of record whose entries were subject to the duties invalidated in the Supreme Court’s V.O.S. Selections decision are entitled to the benefit of that decision, and ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to take immediate action. The CIT order required that:

• All unliquidated entries entered subject to IEEPA duties invalidated by the Supreme Court decision must be liquidated without regard to those duties; and
• Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not yet final must be reliquidated without IEEPA duties

In response to the CIT’s Order, the DOJ made an immediate oral motion to suspend the Order and to allow time for the government to appeal. Judge Eaton immediately denied the motion.  Instead of appealing, however, on March 6 the U.S. government filed a declaration from a CBP official that provided some details on how the agency might issue tariff refunds. The CBP declaration notes the “unprecedented volume of refunds” and explains that CBP’s existing procedures and technology are not well-suited to the refund task.

Following a closed-door status conference on Friday, March 6, Judge Eaton issued orders suspending his March 4 order requiring CBP to begin paying refunds immediately. In addition, Judge Eaton issued an order requiring CBP to provide a status update on their refund process efforts by Thursday, March 12.

CBP’s declaration does not specifically commit to providing refunds, and we note that the U.S. government may still decide to challenge the CIT’s order directing refunds. However, CBP’s declaration in response to the refund order provides some indication of how the agency plans to proceed with refunds. The declaration states, “CBP is confident that it can develop and implement new ACE functionality that will streamline and consolidate refunds and interest payments on an importer basis, rather than issuing 53,173,939 separate entry-specific refunds with multiple payments going to the same importer.”  The declaration notes that CBP anticipates a process that will require importers to file declarations listing their duties paid, which would be verified by CBP, followed by Treasury issuing refunds electronically. The CBP filing is limited to the potential procedures the government could use to process refunds, and does not indicate the government’s position on a range of issues, including whether it believes that importers would be required to file their own court cases challenging the tariffs in order to be eligible for refunds, or how the government might approach liquidated entries (though the declaration suggests the refund procedures could apply at liquidation or as part of a reliquidation process).

Arnold & Porter’s trade and tariff refund team continues to monitor developments and can advise clients on the necessary steps to protect their refund rights while these proceedings are pending. 

For related Arnold & Porter updates on tariff refunds, see:

• SCOTUS Tariff Decision – Refunds, Impacts, and Strategic Considerations
• The Next Wave of Tariff Litigation: Consumer Class Actions
• SCOTUS Tariff Decision Impacts and Next Steps

*Sally Alghazali contributed to this Advisory. Ms. Alghazali is admitted only in Minnesota; practicing law in Washington, DC during the pendency of her application for admission to Washington, DC Bar and under the supervision of lawyers of the firm who are members in good standing of the State Bar.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Advisory is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.