By Dyana Mardon, Cameron A. Secord, and Robert L. Soza

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled (6-3) that IEEPA does not allow the President to impose tariffs. See our prior publication on this decision here: Supreme Court Rules IEEPA Does Not Authorize Tariffs. The majority explained that imposing tariffs is a core power reserved for Congress, and while IEEPA allows the President to “regulate…importation,” it does not include the power to tax or impose tariffs.  The Supreme Court’s decision applies broadly to IEEPA-based tariffs. This includes:

• the 25% duty on most Canadian and Mexican imports,
• 10–20% duty on Chinese imports, and
• the “reciprocal” tariffs on all trading partners.

Importantly, the Department of Justice has clarified that the Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump holding extends to IEEPA tariffs imposed on Brazil and India as well, even though those tariffs were not directly before the Supreme Court.

However, the Supreme Court’s opinion did not address how the U.S. Government should issue tariff refunds. Importers seeking recovery of IEEPA tariffs paid have several potential options, each with distinct advantages and risks. A summary of these options follows.

Option 1: Post-Summary Corrections (PSC)

• Importers may attempt to file post-summary corrections (“PSCs”) for unliquidated entries. However, this option presents significant challenges. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) may be unable or unwilling to process the anticipated volume of claims, and to date, there have been no reports of successful PSCs filed for IEEPA duties paid.
• Critically, filing a PSC does not preserve any legal rights that would not otherwise exist. Denial of a PSC does not create the ability to sue, and an importer can file a protest with or without a PSC. The Administration has indicated that it does not intend to support refunds for all importers through the administrative process in the near term.

Option 2: Monitoring Liquidations and Filing Protests

• Importers may consider monitoring their liquidations and filing protests on liquidated entries. However, this path is complicated by the nature of CBP’s actions. The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) confirmed that CBP acted in a ministerial capacity when liquidating entries subject to IEEPA tariffs, which means those liquidations are likely not protestable. This is particularly true for entries liquidated before the Learning Resources decision.
• For entries liquidated after the Learning Resources decision, the situation is less clear. These liquidations may no longer be “ministerial” acts by CBP and may therefore be protestable—requiring a protest that, if denied, would give rise to CIT The precise cutoff dates remain unclear, and specifically whether the relevant date is the date of the Learning Resources decision or a later date.
• Risks of the Administrative Process (Option 1 and Option 2): Relying only on PSCs and protests is slow, burdensome, and offers no clear outcome. CBP does not have the capacity to process the flood of protests, meaning importers who pursue this route will likely end up having to go to the CIT on an entry-by-entry basis.

Option 3: Filing an Action in the Court of International Trade

• Filing a lawsuit in the CIT increases the likelihood of receiving refunds, particularly for entries liquidated prior to the Learning Resources ruling.
• There are currently more than 2,000 complaints on the CIT docket related to IEEPA tariff refunds. Importers can file claims broadly, alleging that they have paid IEEPA duties and are entitled to refunds across all applicable entries.

• Risks of Not Filing Suit. Importers face real risks if they do not file suit in the CIT.
  • No Obvious Alternative Remedy. There is no clear alternative available other than through litigation at the CIT. While Congress could theoretically step in and create a remedy, there is no expectation that the current Congress will accomplish this, especially not in a veto-proof manner.
  • CIT’s Jurisdiction Limited to Parties Before It. If the CIT rules in favor of plaintiffs, importers who have not filed suit may not receive similar treatment. The court has previously ruled in other matters that it cannot order relief to parties that have not filed a claim with the CIT.  The government has explicitly argued in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that one plaintiff “cannot represent the interests of third parties who have filed their own cases, are represented by their own counsel, and are presently before the CIT.
  • Administration’s Position. Importers should take seriously the comments from the Trump Administration indicating that this issue must be litigated.
  • Timing Considerations. The longer an importer waits to file, the greater the risk that the DOJ will argue that the importer delayed unreasonably. While there is a two-year statute of limitations, delay may give the DOJ grounds to argue that the CIT should not exercise its equitable authority to reliquidate entries given how long the importer took to come to the court.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For more information, please contact a member of the National Security and International Trade practice.

Meet Jackson Walker

Since 1887, Jackson Walker has represented some of the most influential companies and business leaders in the world. Today, we remain firmly rooted in Texas while serving clients around the globe. With more than 500 attorneys, we are the largest law firm in the state. Jackson Walker consistently ranks among leading firms in Chambers and Partners, Best Law Firms® by Best Lawyers, and the BTI Client Service A-Team. To explore our related experience, visit our National Security and International Trade page.