Tariffs and the Path to Refunds Following the Supreme Court Ruling

Introduction of Trump Tariffs

Beginning in early 2025, President Trump invoked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose a 25% duty on most Canadian and Mexican imports and a 10% duty on most Chinese imports. He also imposed a baseline duty of at least 10% on imports from all trading partners, with higher rates applied to dozens of countries.

The tariffs sparked extensive litigation and prompted challenges from importers who questioned their legality. These disputes resulted in landmark decisions from both the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), with many importers filing actions in the CIT to seek refunds for duties paid under the invalidated tariffs.

The Supreme Court’s 2026 Decision

The legality of these tariffs was challenged by several importers and trade groups. The dispute ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. In February 2026, the court issued its opinion that the tariffs imposed under IEEPA exceeded presidential authority.

As a result, the court invalidated tariffs imposed under this emergency authority, raising the possibility that duties collected under the program may need to be refunded to affected importers.

The Traditional Tariff Collection Process

Once a tariff is enacted, importers must pay duties when goods enter the United States. Duties are collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as part of the entry process. The importer of record files documentation describing the goods, their value and their classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. CBP then reviews the entry and eventually “liquidates” it, meaning the agency finalizes the duty calculation for that import transaction. If the final calculation shows that the importer paid too much duty, CBP issues a refund. If the importer underpaid, CBP assesses additional duties. The liquidation process must occur within one year of the goods entering the United States (with certain exceptions).

If entries are not liquidated within one year, the entry will be liquidated by operation of law based on the rates provided by the importer. To prevent this from happening and to reduce the possibility of underpayment by importers, most entries are set to automatically liquidate after 314 days. CBP uses the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), which is the digital system for processing imports and exports in the U.S. Following liquidation, CBP has 90 days to fix any errors in the liquidation process.

The Tariff Liquidation Process and Its Role in Refunds

On March 4, 2026, (modified March 5, 2026), the CIT “ordered that, with respect to any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to the IEEPA duties imposed by the Executive Orders considered by the Supreme Court in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 2026 WL 477534 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026), U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hereby directed to liquidate those entries without regard to the IEEPA duties. Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final shall be reliquidated without regard to those duties.”

On March 6, 2026, Brandon Lord, executive director, trade programs directorate, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, described the magnitude of refunds required. CBP received over 53 million entries subject to duties enacted under the IEEPA from over 330,000 importers. These collected and estimated duties total approximately $166 billion. As of March 4, 2026, approximately 20.1 million entries remain unliquidated.

In his declaration, Mr. Lord stated that, “In light of the Court’s March 5, 2026 amended order, CBP is now facing an unprecedented volume of refunds. Its existing administrative procedures and technology are not well suited to a task of this scale and will require manual work that will prevent personnel from fully carrying out the agency’s trade enforcement mission.” CBP requested 45 days to add new functionality to ACE to assist with the refund process. CIT granted CBP additional time with the expectation of progress updates. Additionally, there are entries that are currently beyond the 90-day period CBP had to reliquidate entries.

On March 12, CBP updated CIT describing the structure and status of developing its proposed IEEPA refund processing capability within ACE, the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE). CAPE is being developed to provide a claim portal for mass entry declaration, CBP’s multiple layer validation process, automatic liquidation/reliquidation and the consolidated routing of electronic refunds.

The Emerging Litigation and Refund Questions

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, thousands of companies have filed lawsuits with the CIT regarding refunds. While the March 5, 2026, amended order from CIT establishes the basis for refunds, the actual procedures for refunds and the timeline of when importers may receive refunds remain uncertain. Importers who overpaid duties may also be entitled to statutory interest on those refunds. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1505(b), U.S. Customs and Border Protection is required to pay interest on excess duties that are refunded following liquidation or reliquidation of an entry.

Economic Damages and Litigation Implications

The Supreme Court’s and the CIT’s rulings raise significant questions regarding the measurement and recovery of economic damages resulting from the unlawful tariffs. For many importers, the duties were paid directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection as part of the import entry process. In those situations, the primary financial impact is the duty amount itself, along with interest.

However, the economic effects of tariffs often extend beyond the direct payment of duties. Many companies incorporated tariff costs into pricing decisions, supply chain strategies and contractual arrangements with suppliers and customers. In some cases, importers passed the tariff costs downstream to distributors or consumers through higher prices. In other cases, companies absorbed the costs internally, reducing profit margins or altering sourcing decisions.

As a result, determining the true economic impact of the tariffs may require careful analysis of pricing behavior, contractual allocation of tariff costs and market responses during the period the tariffs were in effect. These issues may become particularly relevant in litigation if courts consider whether importers are entitled to recover only the duties paid or additional economic damages.

While tariff refund claims typically focus on the recovery of duties collected by the government, disputes could arise regarding whether downstream parties such as distributors, retailers or consumers bear economic losses attributable to the tariffs. Courts may therefore encounter arguments related to cost pass‑through, mitigation and the allocation of tariff burdens across the supply chain.

What Comes Next for Importers Seeking Tariff Refunds

As litigation continues in the Court of International Trade, economic analysis and expert testimony may play an important role in evaluating claims and determining the allocation of tariff burdens across affected industries. In cases involving large volumes of imports, complex supply chains and competing claims of economic harm, forensic economists and damages experts may assist courts by evaluating pass‑through effects, measuring financial impacts and providing objective analysis of the economic consequences associated with the challenged tariffs.

If your organization is impacted by these developments, Weaver can help you evaluate potential refund claims, assess economic impacts and support your position throughout the process. Connect with our team to discuss your specific situation.

©2026