U.S. Tariffs Under IEEPA: Court Orders Nationwide Liquidation Without Duties

The legal landscape surrounding the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) continues to evolve rapidly. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which held that the tariffs were unlawful, the United States Court of International Trade issued a new order on March 4, 2026 addressing the practical consequences for importers.

In its decision in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, the Court directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate certain entries without applying the IEEPA duties, potentially opening the door to significant refunds. The order raises important questions regarding the scope of judicial relief, the procedural rights of importers, and the mechanisms through which affected duties may be recovered.

This note summarizes the decision, its legal context, and the potential implications for companies that paid tariffs under the now-invalidated executive orders.

1. A New Decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade

On March 4, 2026, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a significant order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States (Court No. 26-01259).

The Court directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to:

• liquidate all unliquidated entries that were subject to duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) without applying those duties, and

• reliquidate any entries that have already been liquidated but are not yet final, also without the IEEPA duties.

Under U.S. customs law, “liquidation” is the administrative process by which CBP finalizes the amount of duties owed on an import entry. Once liquidation becomes final—generally after the expiration of the protest period—the duty assessment becomes legally binding. By ordering CBP to liquidate or reliquidate entries without the IEEPA duties, the Court effectively requires Customs to recalculate the duties owed on affected imports and eliminate the tariffs imposed under the challenged executive orders.

In practical terms, the order instructs CBP to remove the IEEPA tariffs from potentially millions of import entries, which may result in substantial refunds to importers whose goods were subject to those duties.

The Court’s reasoning rests largely on the institutional role of the Court of International Trade within the U.S. judicial system. Judge Richard Eaton emphasized that the CIT has exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over most customs disputes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581, and that Congress created the Court with nationwide geographic jurisdiction. Unlike federal district courts, which typically exercise jurisdiction within a defined regional circuit, the CIT is designed to ensure uniform interpretation and application of U.S. customs law across the entire country.

The Court also pointed to the constitutional requirement that duties be uniform throughout the United States (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8). According to the order, allowing different treatment of identical import entries depending on whether an importer filed a lawsuit would undermine that principle of uniformity and create significant administrative inefficiencies.

For these reasons, the Court concluded that its order directing CBP to liquidate or reliquidate entries without the IEEPA duties was consistent with both the statutory framework governing the Court of International Trade and the constitutional requirement of uniform customs duties.

At the same time, the breadth of the order—particularly its potential application to importers who were not parties to the litigation—raises important questions about the scope of judicial relief in customs matters and may become a central issue in any appeal.

2. Background: The Supreme Court Invalidates the IEEPA Tariffs

The order issued by the Court of International Trade follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Feb. 20, 2026), which addressed the legality of tariffs imposed by the executive branch under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

IEEPA is a statute that grants the President broad authority to regulate economic transactions during a declared national emergency involving foreign threats. Historically, however, the statute has primarily been used to impose financial sanctions, asset freezes, and restrictions on transactions, rather than to establish tariffs on imported goods.

In Learning Resources, the Supreme Court examined whether the executive branch could rely on IEEPA as a legal basis to impose broad import tariffs through executive orders. The Court ultimately concluded that the statute did not authorize the imposition of tariffs in this manner, holding that the duties imposed under the relevant executive orders exceeded the authority granted by Congress. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the principle that the power to impose duties and tariffs rests primarily with Congress, and that delegations of such authority must be clearly expressed in statute.

As a result, the Supreme Court determined that the tariffs imposed under IEEPA were unlawful, effectively invalidating the legal basis for those duties.

However, the decision did not directly address the practical consequences for the customs system, particularly with respect to the treatment of duties that had already been assessed or collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The Court did not specify how previously entered goods should be treated, whether duties already paid must be refunded, or how entries in various procedural stages—such as unliquidated entries or entries subject to protest—should be handled.

These questions were therefore left to the lower courts and the customs administration to resolve. The order issued by the Court of International Trade in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States represents one of the first judicial attempts to translate the Supreme Court’s ruling into concrete instructions for the customs liquidation process, and to clarify how the invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs should be implemented in practice.

3. Practical Impact for Importers

If implemented as written, the order could have significant practical and financial consequences for importers whose goods were subject to the IEEPA tariffs.

The Court’s directive affects import entries that are still within the customs administrative process, particularly those that have not yet reached final liquidation.

Two principal categories of entries are implicated.

First, entries that remain unliquidated must be liquidated without the IEEPA duties. Under U.S. customs law, liquidation is the administrative act through which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) determines and finalizes the duties owed on an import entry. Many entries remain unliquidated for extended periods due to administrative processing, post-entry reviews, or litigation. For these entries, the Court’s order effectively requires CBP to calculate duties as if the IEEPA tariffs had never been imposed.

Second, the order also addresses entries that have already been liquidated but whose liquidation is not yet final. Liquidation becomes final only after the expiration of the statutory protest period—generally 180 days after liquidation—or once any pending protest or litigation is resolved. For entries that are still within this non-final stage, the order provides that they must be reliquidated without the IEEPA duties. In practice, this could result in the recalculation of duties and the issuance of refunds to importers.

Because the tariffs affected a very large number of import transactions across multiple industries, the potential refunds could be substantial. The financial impact will depend on factors such as:

• the volume of imports subject to the tariffs,

• the amount of duties previously deposited or assessed, and

• the procedural status of each entry within the customs liquidation process.

Another notable aspect of the order is the Court’s view regarding the scope of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Judge Eaton emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the tariffs applies to all importers whose entries were subject to the IEEPA duties, not only to the parties involved in the litigation. According to the Court, the institutional structure of the Court of International Trade—combined with the constitutional requirement that duties be uniform throughout the United States—supports a nationwide application of the ruling in the administration of customs law.

For importers, the decision therefore raises important procedural and strategic considerations, particularly for companies that have paid significant IEEPA duties and whose entries may still be within the liquidation or protest window.

4. Limits of the Order

Although the order has potentially broad practical consequences, its scope remains subject to important limitations under U.S. customs law.

First, the order does not apply to entries whose liquidation has already become final. Under the U.S. customs framework, liquidation becomes final once the statutory protest period—generally 180 days after liquidation—expires without a protest being filed, or once any pending protest has been resolved. Once liquidation is final, the assessment of duties is normally conclusive and binding on both the importer and the government. As a result, the Court’s order does not reopen or disturb entries that have already reached this stage, meaning that importers with finalized entries may not benefit directly from the ruling.

Second, the order does not address the issue of interest on potential refunds. If duties are refunded following liquidation or reliquidation without the IEEPA tariffs, the question arises whether importers will also be entitled to statutory interest on the refunded amounts. U.S. customs law provides for interest in certain circumstances, but the applicability of those provisions in the context of duties invalidated by the Supreme Court has not yet been clarified.

These limitations mean that, while the decision could lead to substantial refunds for many importers, the full financial implications remain uncertain, particularly for companies whose entries have already been finalized or where the calculation of interest may become the subject of further litigation.

5. Possible Appeal and Legal Questions Raised

The United States government may seek appellate review of the order before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which exercises exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the United States Court of International Trade pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). In practice, appeals in customs matters are typically handled by the Department of Justice, Civil Division (Commercial Litigation Branch) acting on behalf of the United States and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

In addition to filing an appeal, the government could also request a stay of the order pending appeal, either from the Court of International Trade or from the Federal Circuit. A stay would temporarily suspend the implementation of the order—particularly the liquidation or reliquidation of entries without the IEEPA duties—while the appellate court reviews the legal issues raised by the decision.

A central issue on appeal would likely concern the scope and institutional basis of the relief granted by the Court of International Trade.

In Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025), the Supreme Court expressed strong skepticism toward “universal injunctions”, i.e., judicial orders that grant relief extending beyond the parties to the litigation. The Court indicated that such injunctions are generally inconsistent with the traditional limits of federal judicial power.

Judge Eaton’s order addresses this issue directly. The Court reasoned that the prohibition on universal injunctions articulated in CASA does not apply in the same manner to the Court of International Trade, which Congress established as a specialized national court with exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over many customs disputes and nationwide geographic jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that customs law inherently requires uniform treatment of duties across the United States, a principle reflected both in the statutory structure governing the CIT and in the constitutional requirement of uniform duties under Article I, Section 8.

Accordingly, the Court suggested that providing relief limited only to the plaintiff importer could create non-uniform tariff treatment for identical imports, depending solely on whether a particular importer had initiated litigation. In the Court’s view, such a result would undermine both the uniform administration of customs law and the institutional role Congress assigned to the CIT.

These considerations raise several legal questions that an appellate court may ultimately need to address, including:

• whether the Court of International Trade may issue relief with nationwide practical effects in customs matters, even when the case formally involves a single importer;

• whether the order constitutes a form of universal injunction, or instead represents a permissible exercise of the Court’s authority to direct the administration of customs laws; and

• how the Supreme Court’s reasoning in CASA should be reconciled with the specialized jurisdiction and nationwide mandate of the Court of International Trade.

Given the potentially significant financial implications of the decision, including the possibility of substantial duty refunds across a large number of import entries, appellate review appears likely. The Federal Circuit’s eventual analysis may therefore play an important role in defining the limits of judicial relief in customs litigation and the institutional authority of the Court of International Trade.

6. Other Developments: Legislative and Administrative Paths

Judicial proceedings are not the only mechanism through which the consequences of the invalidated IEEPA tariffs may ultimately be addressed. In parallel with ongoing litigation, legislative initiatives, and administrative procedures may also shape the avenues available to importers seeking recovery of duties paid under the now-invalidated tariffs.

First, Congress may consider legislative measures to address the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision. When large-scale tariff programs are invalidated or terminated, Congress has occasionally intervened to clarify the treatment of duties previously collected or to establish a statutory refund framework. Although no final legislative proposal has yet been enacted, discussions have reportedly emerged regarding the possibility of a uniform statutory mechanism to process refunds or to define the eligibility criteria for recovering IEEPA duties. Any such legislation could significantly affect the rights of importers, particularly in situations where judicial remedies remain uncertain or procedurally complex.

Second, importers may still have several procedural options under existing customs law to seek recovery of duties, depending largely on the procedural status of their entries.

One possible avenue is the administrative protest procedure before U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, importers generally have 180 days from the date of liquidation of an entry to file a protest challenging the assessment of duties. If the protest is timely filed and granted, Customs may reliquidate the entry and refund the duties that were improperly assessed. For entries that are still within this protest window, filing a protest may be an important step in preserving refund rights.

Another route involves direct litigation before the Court of International Trade, particularly where importers challenge the legality of duties imposed under federal statutes or executive action. The CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over many customs disputes, including challenges to the administration and enforcement of tariff measures. Importers may therefore pursue relief through litigation, especially where administrative remedies have been exhausted or where broader legal questions regarding the validity of the tariffs are at issue.

In practice, the appropriate strategy may depend on several factors, including:

• the procedural status of the entry (unliquidated, liquidated but not final, or final),

• whether a protest has already been filed,

• the amount of duties at stake, and

• the potential impact of ongoing litigation or future legislative developments.

Given the large number of affected entries and the significant financial implications involved, importers may need to carefully evaluate the available procedural paths in order to preserve their rights while the legal and regulatory framework continues to evolve.

Conclusion

The March 4, 2026, order issued by the United States Court of International Trade in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States represents an important step in implementing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which invalidated the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). By directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate unliquidated entries without the IEEPA duties—and by addressing the treatment of entries whose liquidation is not yet final—the Court has begun translating the Supreme Court’s ruling into concrete instructions for the customs administration.

At the same time, the order leaves several key legal and practical questions unresolved. In particular, it does not address entries whose liquidation has already become final, nor does it clarify whether importers will be entitled to statutory interest on potential refunds. Moreover, the breadth of the order—especially its potential nationwide practical effect—may raise important appellate questions regarding the scope of the Court of International Trade’s authority, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence on universal injunctions.

The situation, therefore, remains legally dynamic. Further clarification may emerge through appeals before the Federal Circuit, through additional litigation before the Court of International Trade, or through possible legislative action by Congress addressing the treatment of duties collected under the invalidated tariff regime.

For importers, the decision underscores the importance of closely reviewing the status of their import entries and evaluating the procedural options available to preserve potential refund claims. The outcome may depend on factors such as whether entries remain unliquidated, whether liquidation is final, or whether administrative remedies—such as protests—are still available.

As the legal framework continues to evolve, companies affected by the IEEPA tariffs should carefully monitor developments and consider appropriate administrative or judicial strategies to protect their rights and potentially recover duties paid under the now-invalidated measures.