For more insights and analysis from Cleary lawyers on policy and regulatory developments from a legal perspective, visit What to Expect From a Second Trump Administration.

On March 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued an order (the “Order”) directing the U.S. government to refund tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, 50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (“IEEPA”) that recently were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026.[1] The Order has immediate implications for importers seeking refunds for the so-called “Trafficking Tariffs” previously imposed on Canada, China, and Mexico, the “Reciprocal Tariffs” previously imposed on most U.S. trading partners, and additional tariffs imposed pursuant to IEEPA (together, the “IEEPA Tariffs”).[2]

The Order

According to the CIT, all importers of record (“IORs”) that paid IEEPA Tariffs are “entitled to the benefit” of SCOTUS’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. In so finding, the CIT directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate all unliquidated entries subject to the IEEPA Tariffs without assessment of those duties, and to reliquidate any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not yet final, without regard to the IEEPA Tariffs. 

The Order’s focus, however, is on the CIT’s exclusive jurisdiction over cases pertaining to IEEPA duty refunds. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., SCOTUS held that U.S. District Courts could no longer issue nationwide injunctions. The Order clarifies, however, that Trump v. CASA, Inc. does not extend to international trade matters – such as those involving the IEEPA tariffs – over which Congress expressly granted the CIT with exclusive subject matter jurisdiction, an opinion affirmed by SCOTUS in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. The Order was authored by Judge Richard Eaton of the CIT, who further explained that he alone will preside over all subsequent cases concerning the IEEPA Tariffs.

What Comes Next

The Trump administration is expected to appeal the CIT’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”),[3] which at a minimum could delay any refund payments. Should the Federal Circuit (and potentially SCOTUS) affirm that IORs are entitled to refunds (as is expected), CBP will need to establish a process for issuing refunds. Although the Order suggests CBP should issue automatic refunds, no mandated process is expressly spelled out in the Order. With that in mind, it currently is unclear how long the refund process will take to implement.

Recommended Next Steps

As discussed in our prior publication on SCOTUS’s Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump decision, IORs can take several steps now to prepare for refunds, including (1) compiling information and documentation regarding entries on which IEEPA Tariffs were paid, (2) identifying the liquidation status and protest deadlines for such entries, (3) filing timely protective protests, and (4) monitoring CBP guidance. The Order is silent as to how entries that have liquidated but do become final should be treated. Liquidated entries become “final” after 180 days have passed since the date of liquidation. Importers may prevent such finalization by protesting liquidation of the entry with IEEPA Tariffs. 

IORs should be prepared for various possible refund procedures, including administrative claims processes requiring submission of a refund claim to CBP with certain documentation relating to the relevant entry, filing of post-summary corrections (“PSCs”), or protest pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514. Cleary’s international trade team is continuing to track developments and is available to assist with entry audits, protest filings, PSCs, and refund recovery strategy.

[1] We discussed SCOTUS’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. Trump in a prior client alert, available here: https://www.clearygottlieb.com/news-and-insights/publication-listing/supreme-court-strikes-down-ieepa-tariffs-what-to-know-and-expect.

[2] We previously discussed the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs, as well as the other IEEPA-based tariffs imposed on Brazil and India, in prior blog posts available here: https://www.clearytradewatch.com/2025/08/president-trump-expands-global-reciprocal-tariffs-and-imposes-additional-tariffs-on-brazil-canada-and-india/, https://www.clearytradewatch.com/2025/07/president-trump-announces-plans-to-impose-modified-reciprocal-tariffs-and-new-tariffs-on-canada-and-mexico-on-august-1/, https://www.clearygottlieb.com/news-and-insights/publication-listing/president-trump-imposes-sweeping-reciprocal-tariffs, https://www.clearygottlieb.com/news-and-insights/publication-listing/president-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-canada-and-mexico-additional-tariffs-on-china, https://www.clearygottlieb.com/news-and-insights/publication-listing/president-trump-imposes-additional-tariffs-on-china-delays-tariffs-on-canada-and-mexico.

[3] SCOTUS’ opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump affirmed the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the IEEPA Tariffs were unlawful. We discussed the Federal Circuit’s opinion in a prior blog post, available here: https://www.clearytradewatch.com/2025/09/u-s-court-of-appeals-for-the-federal-circuit-rules-against-trumps-ieepa-tariffs/.