Supreme Court Ruling Opens the Door to Tariff Refund Claims — Action Plan for Importers
On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, concluding that the tariff regime imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was unlawful. The decision invalidates a broad suite of tariffs imposed since early 2025: the IEEPA-based tariffs on imports from specific countries such as Brazil, Canada, China, and Mexico, as well as the global reciprocal tariff regime. Public estimates place the duties collected under these measures in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
The Supreme Court’s ruling dramatically alters the landscape for U.S. importers and global supply chains. With the legal basis for these tariffs erased, businesses that paid duties under the IEEPA orders now face both an unprecedented opportunity and a complex legal question: how to recover those payments. The Supreme Court did not prescribe a detailed refund process, leaving lower courts and federal agencies to shape the path forward. That process is now moving quickly: on March 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered its mandates to issue immediately and returned the cases to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), which is now overseeing the next phase of the refund process.
The refund procedure and related litigation at the courts continue to evolve, meaning that refund guidance is also expected to evolve along with it.
Refund Rights and Strategic Considerations
Companies that directly paid IEEPA duties to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are positioned to assert refund claims, typically as the importer of record.
On March 4, 2026, the CIT ordered CBP to issue refunds to all importers of record. Shortly thereafter, CBP informed the CIT that it could not immediately comply with the CIT’s order to issue refunds to all importers. CBP requested – and the CIT granted – 45 days for it to develop a new refund procedure in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal. Information about this process and the related court cases continue to evolve and guidance may change.
Importers and companies affected by the tariffs should consider several variables as this process unfolds:
- Who paid the tariff to CBP / importer of record status — The party with the most direct claim is usually the U.S. importer of record. Foreign manufacturers, exporters, and parent companies may still have strong commercial or contractual interests in refunds, particularly where U.S. affiliates, distributors, or customers imported the goods.
- Liquidation Status — Liquidation status may impact available tariff refund procedures. “Liquidation” describes the CBP’s final calculation of duties, taxes, and fees due on imports, and it typically occurs 314 days after the entry date can determine whether post-entry corrections, protests, or court-directed relief remain available.
- Administrative vs. Judicial Remedies — Refund procedures may involve CBP’s administrative post-summary correction processes, protests, or other procedures approved by the courts. Filing lawsuits at the CIT may also provide additional opportunities to fully protect refund rights. The refund path is currently developing as a combination of court supervision and CBP administration. CBP has informed the CIT that it expects to be able to implement a refund claims process through ACE within approximately 45 days, subject to court approval. This process is subject to change.
- Protest Deadlines — For liquidated entries, statutory protest deadlines may remain critical. Companies should not assume that a pending CIT action, standing alone, will necessarily preserve every entry if protest deadlines approach before the refund process is finalized.
- Volume of Claims — With thousands of importers seeking refunds, litigation and administrative review pathways are likely to evolve rapidly in the months ahead. The scale of potential claims is substantial, and the mechanics may continue to change as the CIT and CBP refine the process.
Clark Hill’s Capabilities and Client Support
Clark Hill already represents importers and multinational clients in connection with IEEPA tariff recovery strategies and related customs, contract, and supply-chain issues. We are prepared to move quickly to evaluate and pursue appropriate litigation and administrative remedies as the refund framework develops.
Our international trade and customs attorneys stand ready to assist companies by evaluating their exposure and determining the most effective course of action to pursue refunds. Our expertise includes administrative filings at CBP. We also advise foreign manufacturers, exporters, and multinational groups whose U.S. affiliates, customers, or distributor-importers may be the parties with direct refund rights, helping them coordinate the customs, contractual, and commercial implications of the recovery process.
Next Steps for Importers
Even where a foreign manufacturer or exporter is not the direct claimant, it may still have a significant economic interest in the refund process and can play an important role in coordinating with U.S. affiliates, importer customers, and distributors. Given the evolving nature of IEEPA refund mechanisms, importers, multinational groups, and businesses affected through the supply chain should:
- Inventory tariff payments under the now-invalidated tariff orders;
- Identify the U.S. importer of record for affected entries;
- Assess liquidation status of imports;
- Review contracts with distributors, customers, and affiliates to determine who bore the tariff cost and who may benefit from any refund; and
- Consult with trade counsel to evaluate the most current refund pathways.
- The legal and administrative framework for tariff refunds is now developing in real time. Businesses with significant IEEPA duty exposure should act proactively to protect and pursue their recovery rights.
The legal and administrative framework for tariff refunds is developing in real time. Businesses with significant IEEPA duty exposure should act proactively to protect and pursue their recovery rights. At the same time, companies should not assume that broader tariff risk has disappeared: after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the administration moved to a temporary 10% surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act while it considers other trade tools.
To request a consultation about representation for tariff recovery or new tariff obligations, contact the Clark Hill Tariff Refund Response Team at tariffs@clarkhill.com. Prior to contacting us, please read the disclosures on this page.
