Court of International Trade Orders Tariff Refunds, but Implementation Questions Remain

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down the Trump Administration’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court did not, however, specify how importers who paid those unlawful tariffs would obtain relief. This week brought a potential breakthrough—and some fast pushback—in the post-decision fight over refunds and refund mechanics. The takeaway: it’s easier to invalidate exactions than to return that money at scale. What happened, and what’s next, below the fold.

As instructed by the Court, the post-decision implementation fight is playing out in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). On Wednesday, March 4, CIT Judge Richard Eaton issued a three-page order that required U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate “any and all unliquidated entries” entered subject to the contested tariffs “without regard to the IEEPA duties,” and to “reliquidate” any liquidated entries whose liquidation is not final “without regard to IEEPA duties.” Essentially, this order shifted the immediate task of reversing tariff payments from importers of record—more than 2,200 of whom have lawsuits pending at the CIT—to CBP and the Trump Administration. As noted by Scott Lincicome (Cato Institute), this was “about the best news importers could have hoped for.”

Judge Eaton was emphatic about the government’s obligation to refund. His order stated that “[a]ll importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of the Learning Resources decision.” And, during the March 4 hearing, the judge reportedly emphasized that “every single cent of IEEPA duties that was imposed must be refunded.” The Trump Administration hasn’t (yet) appealed Eaton’s sweeping order to the Federal Circuit, notwithstanding public statements that refunds could be contested or delayed. Refunds aren’t guaranteed, but the probable path forward is much clearer—and more centralized—than a week ago.

Then, on Friday, March 6, 2026, the scale of Eaton’s order came to bear. The invalid IEEPA tariffs involve $166 billion paid by approximately 330,000 importers in more than 53 million entries in CBP’s software ledgers. (For this purpose, “liquidation” happens automatically after 314 days from import and essentially means that payments are finalized; then, there’s a 90-day window during which these payments may be revised—“reliquidated”—by CBP, subject to eligibility and administrability concerns.) At another hearing, CBP estimated that manual refunds would require 4.4 million person-hours—more than five centuries of human labor—to complete.

The result: Eaton suspended his order’s requirement for “immediate compliance” while leaving in place his broader stance on refunds happening. In 45 days, CBP “hopes to have a system in place” to process the “unprecedented volume” of IEEPA tariff refunds. CBP plans to “streamline and consolidate refunds and interest payments” to make such payments “simpler and more efficient.” Again, there’s a path forward, but advisors still are recommending that importers of record file administrative claims and court actions.

More generally, this week’s activity shows a self-imposed shift in the CIT’s role from adjudicator to administrator. IEEPA issues will flow through Eaton—who wasn’t involved in the litigation that led to Learning Resources—and the CIT’s chief judge. Although Eaton’s approach may be a completely rational way manage implementation at scale, this approach raises conventional concerns about courts’ ability to oversee and enforce mechanics involving lots of people, money, and complexity. Whether this effort is a resounding success or a hollow hope may be determined by how things play out in the CIT over the next two months.

Previous TaxProf Blog coverage: