Tariff Refund Lawsuits After the Supreme Court’s IEEPA Ruling: How Importers Can Prove Entitlement, Preserve Claims, and Win Reliquidation With Interest in the Court of International Trade
The Supreme Court decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump materially changes the litigation calculus for corporate plaintiffs seeking refunds of duties collected under emergency tariff programs that relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, commonly called IEEPA. On February 20, 2026, the Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs and remanded for further proceedings. (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 2026).
That holding is not simply incremental statutory interpretation. In practical litigation terms, it removes the government’s strongest defense on liability for the challenged tariff authority. It also raises an unusually large remedial question, because economists at the Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated that up to 175 billion dollars in tariff collections are potentially subject to refunds following the Supreme Court ruling. (Penn Wharton Budget Model, 2026).
Pondering the likelihood of success, the analysis must separate two questions that non-litigator customs folk often collapse into one. Will plaintiffs prevail on the illegality of the IEEPA tariffs? If plaintiffs prevail, what procedural and remedial doctrine will determine whether a particular importer actually obtains a money judgment or a reliquidation-based refund? Post Learning Resources, the first question trends strongly in plaintiff’s favor. The second question will decide outcomes across industries and will drive the next phase of jurisprudence.
Likelihood of success on liability: high for the core IEEPA tariff bucket
On liability, the Supreme Court has already answered the threshold statutory question for the contested measures. The Court held that IEEPA does not authorize tariff imposition. (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 2026).
Accordingly, for companies whose duty payments are traceable to the IEEPA-based tariff lines at issue, the probability of success on the merits is high, subject to ordinary plaintiff-side requirements such as standing, proof of payment, and proper party status. Reporting framed the litigation as a wave of refund suits rather than a re-litigation of authority, and that framing is consistent with the legal posture after the merits ruling. (Reuters, 2026; Penn Wharton Budget Model, 2026).
A key operational overlay is that Customs and Border Protection announced it would stop collecting the IEEPA tariffs effective February 24, 2026, deactivating the relevant tariff provisions while leaving open the question of how refunds will be processed. (Reuters, 2026). This step is not itself a merits concession, but it reinforces that the live dispute is shifting from prospective relief to backward-looking monetary remedies.
Where the litigation will be won or lost: jurisdiction, timing, liquidation finality, and remedial power
The Court of International Trade is the central tribunal for most tariff refund litigation because Congress gave it specialized subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising out of laws providing for tariffs and duties. In these cases, plaintiffs commonly proceed under the court’s residual jurisdiction provision, 28 U.S.C. section 1581(i), when ordinary administrative routes are inadequate for constitutional or ultra vires challenges to the tariff program. (Miller Chevalier, 2025).
The key attorney task is to align each plaintiff’s fact pattern with a jurisdictional lane that the court will accept as both available and adequate. While the details vary by importer posture and entry status, the same strategic fact keeps recurring in practitioner guidance. A plaintiff who filed early and preserved claims against liquidation risk has a cleaner path to an effective refund remedy than a plaintiff who waited until after liquidation became final.
The liquidation problem: why entry status is the gating fact for refunds
In customs law, liquidation is the administrative act that finalizes duty assessment for an entry. Once final, liquidation can function as a procedural bar, not because the tariff becomes lawful, but because finality limits what can be corrected and through what vehicle. That is why many importers sought to prevent liquidation pending Supreme Court review and why the post-decision disputes will focus on whether the Court of International Trade can order reliquidation and refunds even after liquidation events occurred. (Court of International Trade, Slip Op. 25 154, 2025).
The Court of International Trade addressed this issue in a December 15, 2025, opinion associated with the refund litigation posture. The court emphasized that where jurisdiction under section 1581(i) has attached, it has authority to order reliquidation and remedial relief, and it rejected the claim that plaintiffs would necessarily be denied a refund remedy solely because liquidation might occur. (Court of International Trade, Slip Op. 25 154, 2025).
This is a pivotal building block for any attorney’s averments because it supplies the doctrinal hinge between illegality and money. Plaintiffs can cite it to argue that the court possesses remedial tools sufficient to make the Supreme Court’s position consequential. The government can still narrow application by arguing about jurisdictional attachment, timeliness, and scope of relief for non-parties, but the foundation is favorable to plaintiffs who properly invoked the court’s jurisdiction while their claims were live.
Statutory refund mechanics and interest: money is available, but only through the correct sequence
Even after an illegality finding, refunds typically flow through the liquidation or reliquidation process as corrected by judicial order. The interest component is not trivial, and it becomes significant at the scale economists are describing. The customs statute governing interest on overpayments, including excess moneys deposited, is 19 U.S.C. section 1505. (19 U.S.C. § 1505).
In practical terms, corporate plaintiffs seeking judgments should frame their requested relief in a way that maps onto customs mechanics, seeking orders that direct correction of entries and payment of excess duties with statutory interest where applicable. That framing tends to reduce judicial hesitation, because it presents the court as ordering the agency to execute a legally required administrative correction rather than awarding free-standing damages.
What jurisprudence will dominate the next phase? Separation of powers and clear authorization for tariff-like taxation
Learning Resources will be cited as the controlling authority for the proposition that a broad tariff regime requires clear congressional authorization and cannot be derived from general emergency powers. (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 2026). It is important to note that the decision is likely to be read as both a statutory holding and a structural warning. Courts often treat tariffs as taxation in effect even when administered through customs schedules, and that characterization pulls the analysis toward congressional primacy.
Court of International Trade remedial authority under section 1581(i)
The most litigated doctrinal issue will likely be the scope of the Court of International Trades remedial authority under section 1581(i), especially after liquidation events. The December 2025 decision contains language that plaintiffs will use to argue that the court can order reliquidation and refunds once jurisdiction attaches. (Court of International Trade, Slip Op. 25 154, 2025). The Supreme Court did not itself order refunds, which pushes companies into complex post-merits proceedings in the Court of International Trade to translate illegality into payment. (Reuters, 2026).
Timeliness and the preserve your claim theme
Expect extensive litigation on accruals and limitations. Practitioner analyses emphasize that importers pursued protective actions because section 1581(i) is commonly treated as subject to a two-year limitations period and because entry status can become outcome determinative. (Mayer Brown, 2025; Orrick, 2025). This matters for the likelihood of success. Big corporations now suing are likely doing so with sophisticated counsel precisely to avoid being trapped by accrual arguments. Those who delayed without a protective filing face a higher risk that the government will litigate procedural bars even if the tariffs were unlawful.
A realistic success forecast for corporate plaintiffs seeking judgments. High probability for plaintiffs with clean importer posture and timely Court of International Trade filings
For plaintiffs who can prove importer of record status, document duty payment, and link the paid duties to the invalid IEEPA tariff provisions, the probability of obtaining meaningful relief is strong, provided they timely invoked the court’s jurisdiction and framed remedies through reliquidation and refund mechanics. Customs stopping collection shortly after the decision underscores that the contested authority is not expected to survive. (Reuters, 2026).
Moderate and contested probability for plaintiffs seeking broad, non-party, or nationwide refund relief
The largest uncertainty is not whether the tariffs were illegal but whether relief will be plaintiff-specific or broader. Courts are often cautious about converting an invalidation into an automatic entitlement for every affected importer without individualized claims, especially when liquidation status differs across many entries. Those practicalities will incline courts toward structured remedies such as test cases, consolidated dockets, and relief limited to parties who preserved claims. (Skadden, 2026; Reuters, 2026).
The macro number is real, but the micro path is procedural
The Penn Wharton Budget Model’s estimate of up to 175 billion dollars in potential refunds is a credible macro framing for the stakes. (Penn Wharton Budget Model, 2026). But litigation outcomes will be entry by entry and plaintiff by plaintiff, shaped by jurisdictional posture and the ability to obtain an operative court order that compels reliquidation or refund processing. That is why the most important jurisprudence for an attorney essay is not only Learning Resources but also the Court of International Trade decisions clarifying remedial authority and the procedural preservation doctrines that control customs disputes. (Court of International Trade, Slip Op. 25 154, 2025).
What is our best argument? A strong merits hand, with refunds decided by procedure and remedy
For major corporations now suing for tariff refunds, the path to success is materially favorable on liability because the Supreme Court has held that IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs at issue. (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 2026). The decisive contest will occur in the Court of International Trade over jurisdictional fit, timeliness, liquidation finality, and the court’s remedial power to order reliquidation and refunds. The most prudent attorney forecast is therefore this. Plaintiffs with timely preserved claims and clean entry documentation have a high likelihood of prevailing and obtaining refunds with interest through reliquidation mechanics. Plaintiffs who did not preserve claims, or who seek expansive relief not tethered to individual entry posture, face materially higher litigation risk even in a post-merits environment where the underlying tariff authority has already been rejected. Further, the author sayeth not.
Bibliography
- Court of International Trade. (2025, December 15). Slip Opinion 25 154.
- Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24 1287. (2026, February 20). Opinion of the Court. Supreme Court of the United States.
- Mayer Brown. (2025, December 16). Court of International Trade Provides Clarity on Potential IEEEPA Tariff Refunds.
- Miller Chevalier. (2025). Trade Compliance Flash: IEEEPA Tariff Litigation Refunds and Preserving Importer Claims.
- Orrick. (2025, December). What Importers and Claim Purchasers Need to Know About Preserving Tariff Refund Claims.
- Penn Wharton Budget Model. (2026, February 20). Supreme Court Tariff Ruling: IEEEPA Revenue and Potential Refunds.
- Reuters. (2026, February 20). U.S. tariff revenue at risk after Supreme Court ruling tops 175 billion, Penn Wharton estimates.
- Reuters. (2026, February 23). U.S. Customs agency to stop collecting tariffs deemed illegal by Supreme Court.
- Reuters. (2026, February 24). Prices investors will pay for tariff refund claims surge after Supreme Court decision.
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP. (2026, February). The Supreme Court Ends IEEEPA Tariffs, Bringing Fresh Uncertainty for Companies.
- United States Code. (n.d.). 19 U.S.C. § 1505.
- United States Code. (n.d.). 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).