In early 2025, the Trump Administration implemented tariffs on foreign products through an executive order, citing the International Emergency Powers Act (“IEEPA”). The tariffs imposed under the IEEPA primarily included two categories: (1) trafficking and immigration tariffs and (2) reciprocal tariffs. The “trafficking and immigration tariffs” placed a 25% duty on most Canadian and Mexican imports, and an initial 10% (although later increased) duty on most Chinese imports. These trafficking and immigration tariffs were premised on the President’s declaration that there was an unusual and extraordinary threat of drug trafficking. In April 2025, President Trump imposed an additional minimum 10% tariff on imports from virtually all trading partners, with dozens of nations facing rates up to 50%. The stated basis of these “reciprocal tariffs” was that they were based on trade deficits with other countries and constituted a national emergency.

Since that time, companies have been paying these tariffs on imported goods either directly or through an importer.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Trump, President of the United States, et al. 

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court in Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Trump, President of the United States, et al. held that President Trump had exceeded his authority when he used emergency powers to introduce these tariffs without approval from Congress. The tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court include all tariffs implemented under the IEEPA. Importantly, this ruling does not impact the imposition of tariffs under other statutory authorities. As such, these tariffs imposed under other statutory authorities remain in effect and will not be subject to refund.

While the Supreme Court addressed the legality of the IEEPA tariffs, it did not mandate refunds for tariffs or set forth a plan for facilitating those refunds. This has left many businesses searching for answers in the wake of the Learning Resources decision.

The Court of International Trade’s Order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States 

Following this ruling from the Supreme Court, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”)—a U.S. federal court with exclusive jurisdiction over matters against the U.S. government involving international trade—received thousands of lawsuits filed by companies seeking refunds for the tariffs described above. Recognizing the need to quickly provide guidance in the wake of significant uncertainty, the CIT moved rapidly and issued an Order on March 4, 2026 in the case Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States. The CIT held that with respect to the tariffs struck down in Learning Resources, Inc., “U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hereby directed to liquidate those entries without regard to the IEEPA duties. Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final shall be reliquidated without regard to those duties.”

The designation of tariffs as “liquidated” relates to the timing of any respective tariff paid. As a result, when a tariff was paid will be essential to determining how those tariffs are refunded. There are essentially three designations for tariffs as they move through the payment process:

1. Unliquidated – an importer pays an estimated tariff at the time of import, and it may take nearly a year before CBP determines the actual, final amount of the tariff imposed. Tariffs within this time period would be considered “unliquidated.”
2. Liquidated, but not final – even after CBP determines what the actual amount of the tariff should be, importers have a 180-day protest period to dispute the tariff imposed. Tariffs that sit within this 180-day window fall into this category.
3. Liquidated and finalized – tariffs are considered liquidated and finalized once CBP has determined the final amount of the tariff and the 180-day protest period has passed.

The CIT’s Order in Atmus Filtration only addressed the first two of these categories: the CIT ordered that any unliquidated entries should be finalized without imposing the IEEPA tariffs, and that any liquidated but not final entries should be reliquidated, removing any imposition of the IEEPA tariff amounts.

While many companies have expressed concern that their liquidated and finalized entries will not be refunded, CBP has issued guidance that it intends to refund all tariffs, including interest, which were struck down in Learning Resources, Inc. regardless of which of three categories the tariff fits into. Following the CIT’s Order, CBP filed a response indicating its anticipated plan for issuing tariff refunds. CBP is in the process of creating a new functionality within its existing Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”) system that would allow importers to submit claims for their tariff refunds.

Ultimately, importers will be able to submit a file through the CPB portal containing a list of entry summaries for which they are requesting IEEPA refunds. While CBP initially estimated rolling out this system within 45 days, delays could very easily occur. Additionally, there has been no indication as to how long it will take importers to receive the refund once a claim has been submitted. In the meantime, interest will continue to accrue.

Implications for Companies Affected by the Tariffs 

Notably, the CIT’s Order requires refunds for the importer of record—not the company who likely ultimately paid the tariff cost. As such, it will be up to companies to contact the importer of record and seek reimbursement for any of the refunds that the importer receives from CBP. Tuggle Duggins will continue to monitor CBP’s progress in implementing the system for facilitating refunds and will issue more guidance to its clients as the process evolves. Our team can help keep you up to date, evaluate potential tariff refunds owed, and help you eventually obtain your refunds.

For additional assistance, contact Ross Hamilton at rhamilton@tuggleduggins.com or 336-271-5279 or Claire Grantham at cgrantham@tuggleduggins.com or 336-271-5269.  

© 2026 Tuggle Duggins P.A. All Rights Reserved. The purpose of this bulletin is to provide a general summary of significant legal developments. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation. It is not intended to be, and should not be, relied upon by the recipient in making decisions of a legal nature. Moreover, information contained in this bulletin may have changed subsequent to its publication. This bulletin does not create an attorney-client relationship between Tuggle Duggins P.A. and the recipient. Therefore, please consult legal counsel before making any decisions or taking any action concerning the issues discussed herein.