March 03, 2026|Client Alerts
By Akana K. J. Ma, John C. Ramig, Seth Trimble, Sonja Arndt-Johnson, and Marshall L. Olney
Refund claimants secured an important procedural victory on March 2, 2026, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied the government a stay and ordered V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Case No. 25-1812, remanded back to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). While procedural in nature, the decision marks another step forward for importers seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Background: From Consolidation to Supreme Court Reversal
The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated V.O.S. Selections with Learning Resources and related actions challenging the Trump Administration’s use of IEEPA to impose broad global tariffs. Following the Supreme Court’s decision on February 20, 2026—deeming the President’s use of IEEPA tariffs unlawful—the Federal Circuit was required to formally return the case to the CIT so that refund proceedings could begin in earnest.
The Government’s Attempt to Delay
After the Supreme Court ruled, the Justice Department asked the Federal Circuit to delay issuing its mandate to return the case to CIT. Specifically, the government requested that the court wait for the Supreme Court to formally finalize its judgment—a process that typically takes about 32 days—and then impose an additional 90-day stay before remanding the case. The government argued that the delay would allow Congress an opportunity to formulate a legislative solution for refunds.
On March 2, 2026, the Federal Circuit rejected that request by unanimous order and denied the government’s motion for a stay. In short, the appeals court declined to pause the litigation any longer.
Where Things Stand Now
Proceedings Return to the Court of International Trade
With the mandate issued, jurisdiction returns to the CIT where more than 2,000 similar tariff lawsuits have already been filed. Those cases were paused pending the Supreme Court’s decision. CIT is now expected to move forward. Key issues likely to be addressed include the mechanics and timing of refunds, treatment of liquidated versus unliquidated entries, administrative implementation by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and potential offsets, such as credits in lieu of refunds, or defenses raised by the government. Given the volume of cases, the process may unfold in stages.
CBP Implementation Remains Uneven
On February 22, 2026, CBP issued CSMS #67834313 announcing that it would stop assessing IEEPA duties on goods entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse. However, Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) has continued liquidating previously filed entries with assessed IEEPA tariffs—even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources. This creates practical complications for importers monitoring liquidation status and protest deadlines.
Practical Considerations for Importers
Importers should remain proactive as guidance from the courts and CBP is expected to be forthcoming. Imports currently being entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse should no longer include IEEPA tariffs, but many may still be subject to duties pursuant to other tariffs.
In any case, importers should still consider if pursuing one or both of the following actions are prudent to advance their place in line for refunds: (1) to file a Post-Summary Correction in respect of unliquidated entries, or protests for liquidated entries, as well as (2) to file a Complaint directly with CIT claiming refunds. For many importers, being proactive even if there is no assurance of a faster resolution is preferable to waiting with thousands of other importers for the courts and the Trump Administration to move forward.
Not the End of Tariff Exposure
The invalidation of IEEPA tariffs does not leave importers “free and clear.” The Trump Administration swiftly imposed a replacement tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act—currently set at 15 percent. These Section 122, Global Import Surcharge Tariffs, are expected to last at least until the end of July when the President’s 150-day period is up and he is required to seek congressional approval. Moreover, the government has indicated that it intends to start investigations under Section 301 tariffs, which are also unchallenged by the IEEPA ruling.
The Road Ahead
The Federal Circuit’s refusal to grant the government a delay signals some disagreement with the Trump Administration’s preference for delay. The coming months will focus on how—and how quickly—refunds are administered. We will continue monitoring developments at CIT and CBP, including implementation guidance and any legislative response.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
