IEEPA Tariffs in Legal Limbo: How Importers Can Preserve Refund Rights

On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the legality of tariffs imposed by President Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This follows three key lower court rulings that found the IEEPA tariffs unlawful:

• On May 28, 2025, the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States that the tariffs exceeded presidential authority under IEEPA (for prior coverage, see the trade alert dated May 30, 2025).
• On August 29, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld the CIT’s decision (for prior coverage, see the trade alert dated September 3, 2025).
• On May 29, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DCDC) reached a similar conclusion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Donald Trump, holding that IEEPA does not authorize the imposition of tariffs.
  
  

On September 9, 2025, SCOTUS agreed to consolidate and expedite review of the CAFC and DCDC cases. While the lower courts have ruled the tariffs unlawful, they remain in effect pending the Supreme Court’s decision, which many hope will be issued by the end of 2025. 

SCOTUS Ruling Could Trigger Refund Opportunities for Importers

Should SCOTUS affirm the lower courts’ rulings that the IEEPA tariffs are unlawful (in whole or in part), the U.S. government would no longer have authority to collect such duties and may be required to refund duties already collected. However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can be expected to rely on a statute (19 U.S.C. §1514) that generally bars refunds unless the importer has filed a timely Protest or the court’s decision explicitly mandates a refund of all duties, regardless of the administrative mechanism. In short, while a SCOTUS decision invalidating the IEEPA tariffs could open the door to refunds, CBP is unlikely to issue blanket refunds, and the process for recovering duties may be complex and time-sensitive.

Historical Precedent: United States v. United States Shoe Corp.

Instructive to the current scenario with the potential illegality of the IEEPA tariffs is the 1998 Supreme Court decision in United States v. United States Shoe Corp., which struck down the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) on exports as unconstitutional under the Export Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Following that case’s mandate:

• The government was required to refund all HMT payments collected on exports where exporters had provided proof of payment of the HMT as far back as their records would permit.
• Refunds were only issued to companies that had filed timely claims or lawsuits and had provided proof of payment of the HMT on exports regardless of the Protest period.
• The refund process was not automatic and required Congressional appropriations to fund repayments.
  
  

The HMT case established that unlawfully collected duties must be refunded and are not always tied to the 180-day post-liquidation period (especially because HMT payments on exports were never subject to “liquidation”), but also highlighted the procedural and legislative hurdles that can delay or limit recovery.

Refund Mechanisms and Key Deadlines

Importers seeking refunds of IEEPA tariffs will likely need to rely on one of two mechanisms:

• Post Summary Corrections (PSC): PSCs can be filed within 314 days after the entry date and no later than 15 days before the scheduled liquidation date. Entries are typically liquidated 314 days after import, although this may vary because liquidation always occurs on Fridays and the entry date nearest to the next scheduled Friday liquidation date is used (which can be before or after 314 days after the date of entry).
• Protests under 19 U.S.C. §1514: For entries that have already been liquidated by CBP, importers may file a Protest within 180 days of the liquidation date. Missing this deadline by even a single day is an absolute bar to recovery of any duty refunds under normal procedures.

Proactive Steps Importers Can Take Now

Even as the legal outcome remains uncertain, importers can take steps now to preserve their ability to claim refunds:

• Track Entry Liquidation Dates Using CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Portal: Importers may wish to consider establishing internal processes to monitor liquidation timelines for entries subject to IEEPA fentanyl/reciprocal tariffs  and all other tariffs, including Normal Trade Relations Duties, Section 301 “China tariffs,” Section 232 steel/aluminum/copper tariffs, antidumping and countervailing duties, Section 201 “safeguard” tariffs, and more. This includes regularly reviewing entry data through CBP’s ACE portal, which provides real-time access to liquidation status and other critical entry information. Leveraging ACE data can help importers identify entries approaching liquidation and take timely action to preserve refund rights and help tie import data to that residing in an importer’s chart of accounts, which directly inform the financial statements.
• Request Extensions of Liquidation: Under 19 U.S.C. §1504, CBP must liquidate entries within one year of entry, but this period can be extended up to three years upon request and with good cause. It is not likely that CBP will grant these extension requests but they could be made nonetheless so that liquidation can be extended until such time as the SCOTUS issues its final decision on the IEEPA tariffs.
• File Protests: For any liquidated entries, importers should avail themselves of this administrative mechanism to preserve their duty refund rights pending a final SCOTUS decision on the IEEPA tariffs.
  
  

If CBP denies an extension request and proceeds with liquidation, importers can also file Protests to preserve their refund rights.