By David Carney, Adriaen Morse, Lionel Andre, and Cory Kirchert, Partners, SECIL Law PLLC | Washington, DC
On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Trump Administration’s tariffs purportedly authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). This reversal opens previously paid tariffs to potential refund claims. Refunds, though, demand rigorous adherence to procedural and substantive requirements. Even if a company or individual can obtain an IEEPA-based tariff refund, the Trump Administration is dedicated to imposing—and since the reversal has imposed—additional tariffs. The Administration continues to press enforcement against tariff evaders, and, in this environment, an importer is well advised to maintain or enhance trade-compliance controls.
The Supreme Court struck down IEEPA-based tariffs. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the President lacked the authority under IEEPA to levy tariffs—a power residing with Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Congress did not expressly include taxation in a list of nine authorized presidential actions in IEEPA, and, among those actions, the term “regulate” cannot be read to include taxation. Importantly, as Justice Kavanaugh lamented in dissent, the ruling left unanswered the question of whether the government is liable for refunds of IEEPA-based tariffs and how to operationalize such refunds. This question is important because of the size of the U.S. government’s potential tariff refund exposure. Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists estimated potential claims for IEEPA-based tariff refunds at approximately $175 billion. According to Bloomberg, more than 1,500 importers have filed lawsuits seeking reimbursement, while about 300,000 importers paid the contested tariffs.
Without further guidance from the Court, an importer desiring refunds of the now unlawful IEEPA-based tariffs faces time-sensitive procedural and substantive requirements. An importer’s recovery of tariffs generally is subject to strict time limitations. After Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) “liquidates” the final duty on the importer, the importer has up to 180 days to file a protest. Missing the 180-day deadline is fatal to any recovery because it is a jurisdictional limitation. CBP has thirty days to decide, after which non-action constitutes a deemed denial. An express or deemed denial is required for the importer to contest judicially the denial by filing, within 180 days, a direct summons and petition in the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”). In light of the litigation that led to the recent reversal of IEEPA-based tariffs, the U.S. government has indicated that it would not object to CIT orders “re-liquidating” plaintiffs’ tariff amounts. Accordingly, an importer that paid liquidated IEEPA-based tariffs might consider administratively contesting the CBP determination and/or filing CIT actions with or without contesting the CBP determination. (Although the U.S. government could initiate a non-judicial refund process, the Administration has signaled that importers will have to litigate to obtain refunds.)
To optimize potential tariff recoveries in such a suit, an importer should immediately:
(1) engage counsel to assess eligibility and establish a strategy for filing in the CIT;
(2) initiate a forensic workstream to quantify and validate refund claim amounts;
(3) undertake to develop a system for tracking rolling liquidation dates; and
(4) map internal data gaps and prepare a scalable documentation architecture.
Notwithstanding the loss on IEEPA-based tariffs, the Trump Administration announced additional tariffs under alternative statutory authority. Shortly after the reversal of the tariffs issued under IEEPA authority, President Trump announced his intention to impose a 10% “global tariff.” Later that day, President Trump signed a proclamation levying a temporary 10% duty on all imports (with some exceptions) pursuant to section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. A day later, President Trump declared that he was increasing this tariff to 15%, which he described as “fully allowed” and “legally tested.” To extend these tariffs beyond 150 days, President Trump must secure congressional approval. Companies should consider tracking tariffs paid under section 122 authority as well, because it is possible that future litigation might result in the courts finding problems with these tariffs as well.
A continued focus on tariffs augers in favor of prophylactic measures to limit enforcement exposure. In light of President Trump’s persistence on tariffs to address trade imbalances and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) prioritization of civil and criminal enforcement of tariff evasion, misclassification, undervalution, and other trade and customs fraud, a company is well served to maintain effective trade-compliance controls. If it has not yet done so, a company should evaluate its U.S. import compliance policies, procedures (including supply chain diligence), training, and reporting to ensure correct classification and valuation of goods entering the United States for tariff, country of origin, and other purposes. Experienced counsel and consultants can assist a company with testing and, as appropriate, enhancing trade-compliance controls.
About the Authors
David Carney, Adriaen Morse, Lionel André, and Cory Kirchert are Partners at SECIL Law PLLC, a Washington, D.C.–based boutique focused on white-collar criminal defense, government and internal investigations, securities disputes, international trade enforcement, and complex civil litigation.
Adriaen Morse and Cory Kirchert are admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of International Trade and regularly advise clients on high-stakes matters, including enforcement exposure and compliance strategy. Collectively, the authors bring extensive experience navigating parallel civil and criminal enforcement risk, complex regulatory frameworks, and time-sensitive litigation strategy. They routinely counsel companies confronting government investigations, and cross-border compliance challenges.
David, Adriaen, Lionel, and Cory can be reached at dcarney@secillaw.com, amorse@secillaw.com, landre@secillaw.com, and ckirchert@secillaw.com, respectively.
