Court of International Trade Signals Potential Coordinated Refund Process for IEEPA Tariffs

By Brett W. Johnson, Derek Flint, T. Troy Galan, and Thomas Williams

On March 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States addressing refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. The CIT order seemingly states that all importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate and reliquidate non-final entries without regard to the IEEPA duties.¹

But the order creates an unusual and largely unexpected procedural situation. It suggests the possibility of a universal refund process, but it provides limited guidance on how refunds will actually be administered by CBP across the millions of affected entries.²

The order is likely to be appealed, particularly given the Administration’s public statements that it intends to defend tariff refunds aggressively. And because the order constitutes a de facto universal injunction, it also implicates the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., which held that universal injunctions are generally impermissible.³

I. What the Order Does—and Does Not—Resolve

In the order, the CIT directed CBP to:

At the same time, key issues remain unresolved.

First, the order does not address entries that have already liquidated and become final, which may still require litigation or other procedural mechanisms to determine refundability.

Second, it remains unclear how CBP will operationalize the CIT’s directive across the millions of affected import entries.

For these reasons, the refund process is still likely to involve additional court orders and procedural developments in the coming months.

II. Context

Although the scope of potential IEEPA tariff refunds is unprecedented, large-scale refund situations in trade law have previously been managed through centralized case-management structures.

After the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Harbor Maintenance Tax as applied to exports in 1998,⁵ the CIT oversaw a coordinated refund process that ultimately resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars returned to businesses that had filed suit in the CIT.⁶

Similarly in 2022, the consolidated In re Section 301 Cases litigation — comprising roughly 3,600 challenges to Lists 3 and 4A tariffs — was centralized before the CIT, which appointed a plaintiffs’ steering committee to coordinate briefing and filings across the cases.⁷

Against that backdrop, the Atmus Filtration order represents an unexpected development in an already unprecedented situation.

III. Potential Appeal and U.S. Supreme Court Review

The order is also likely to draw immediate scrutiny from the Administration, which has indicated it intends to defend or object to tariff refunds aggressively.

One issue that could quickly emerge on appeal is the scope of the order’s relief. The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that universal injunctions are generally impermissible.⁸ The CIT’s order states that principle does not apply in this context because of the CIT’s nationwide jurisdiction over trade matters.

Whether that reasoning withstands appellate review remains to be seen. If the issue proceeds through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, it could ultimately return to the U.S. Supreme Court given the surrounding constitutional question.

IV. Next Steps

Because the order provides limited procedural guidance, significant questions remain regarding how refunds will ultimately be implemented and how CBP will administer the court’s directive across affected entries.

At the same time, the order is likely to draw appellate scrutiny, given its implications for universal-injunction jurisprudence. As a result, the procedural framework governing IEEPA tariff refunds may continue to evolve through further litigation.

In addition, if a blanket refund does occur, importers of record can expect claim demands from end-users who actually paid the tariffs (or believe they paid the tariffs) downstream. After the IEEPA tariffs were implemented, certain companies provided a line item on invoices to customers reflecting the pass-through tariff cost. Others may have just raised prices accordingly.  In any event, this will open up a new front on the refund issues as consumer advocates, state attorneys general, and large customers seek a slice of the tariff refund pie.

Importers affected by the IEEPA tariffs should continue to monitor developments closely as the refund process develops, review their agreements as to whether a claim exists with respect to the refunds, and stay attuned to additional guidance from the courts and CBP as it emerges.

***Opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the firm’s or their colleagues’.