As covered in our previous post, on February 20, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president the authority to impose tariffs, fully striking down of the Trump Administration’s IEEPA-based tariffs.
On March 4, 2026, in a suit seeking refunds of IEEPA-based tariffs, the Court of International Trade (CIT) ordered US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to stop collection of IEEPA-based tariffs and reverse IEEPA-based tariffs that had been assessed but not yet paid by importers. Though that order has been suspended, the CIT is requiring CBP to report on its proposal for and ongoing efforts towards an electronic refund filing and issuance process.
Against this backdrop, the Trump Administration has imposed or begun the process of creating new tariffs under the Trade Act of 1974, implementing worldwide 10% tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 hours after the Supreme Court’s decision. Most recently, the Trump Administration initiated dozens of investigations under Section 301 to consider if tariffs are needed to address “excess capacity and production in manufacturing” and forced labor practices.
Section 122 Questions
Hours after the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 ruling, President Trump, imposed a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, which authorizes temporary, global tariffs to address certain issues concerning “fundamental international payments problems.” Such tariffs are limited to 15% and a maximum of 150 days (absent extension of that time period by Congress). The new 10% Section 122 tariffs went into effect on February 24 and are currently set to expire on July 24, 2026. Reporting suggests the Administration may consider increasing the tariff rate, potentially on a country-by-country basis, up to the 15% statutory maximum.
A lawsuit by several state attorneys general, however, is presently challenging these Section 122 tariffs. This case focuses on whether President Trump’s latest tariffs are overbroad or the conditions are present to justify these 150-day tariffs. Importers could consider taking steps to track Section 122 tariff payments because this case could ultimately result in tariff refunds becoming available for Section 122 tariffs as well.
Additional Investigations and Tariffs
The Trump Administration is also using Section 301 of the Trade Act (and could potentially use Section 232) to impose additional tariffs that could be harder to challenge.
On March 11, 2026, US Trade Representative (USTR) launched sweeping Section 301 investigations to consider “structural” manufacturing sector surpluses caused by trade with the countries that have signed trade framework agreements under the Trump Administration, including China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, and India.
On March 12, the USTR also announced investigations to consider tariffs on a list of 60 countries in connection with forced labor practices.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Learning Resources and before the March 11 and 12 investigations were initiated, the USTR previewed that Section 301 investigations may be used to enforce countries’ obligations under Trump trade agreements. Over the coming weeks and months, we could see additional Section 301 (and resulting tariffs) designed to functionally implement the tariff rates agreed to under the Administration’s trade deals and otherwise progress the president’s trade agenda.
Further, the Administration reportedly plans to launch Section 232 investigations into batteries, chemicals, plastics, and equipment for telecommunications and the electrical grid. The Administration could also expedite new tariffs using completed or ongoing Section 232 investigations into sectors including critical minerals, pharmaceutical products, polysilicon and its derivatives, drones and their components, certain medical equipment and devices, wind turbines and their parts and components, and robotics and industrial machinery.
Refund Progress
When importers enter goods into the United States, they calculate and agree to pay duties based on self-classification of entered imports. The entries are then subject to an administrative process called “liquidation” through which CBP assesses whether initial import classifications and duty payments are correct, finalizes the tally of duties owed, and actually collects final payments of such duties. Through this process, CBP also refunds any excess duties paid by the importer or, if necessary, issues a bill for additional duties.
On March 4, 2026, the CIT ordered CBP to immediately begin liquidating unliquidated entries (or, for any not yet subject to “final” liquidation reliquidate eligible entries) without applying the now-defunct IEEPA-based tariffs.
However, CBP responded to the CIT in court filings, explaining that compliance with the terms of the original order were not possible and may introduce additional complications to the refund process. Instead, CBP explained its proposal for an electronic refund filing system it has already begun implementing into its Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) platform.
CBP’s “Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries” (CAPE)
CBP explained in an additional filing that they are working to build a new electronic system to process IEEPA‑related refunds based on consolidated data submitted by affected importers. The new ACE‑based functionality is known as CAPE, which CBP states will feature an e-filing portal through which importers can upload spreadsheet summaries of entries on which refunds are owed, automated data processing can prepare the data for review, CBP can review and liquidate (or reliquidate) entries without assessing IEEPA-based duties, and refunds can be calculated and issued with interest.
In response to CBP’s stated progress towards implementing its CAPE system, the CIT suspended its original order for CBP to immediately begin refunding tariffs through the liquidation/reliquidation process. Neither the CIT’s original order nor CBP’s later court filings concerning its planned electronic refund filing process fully address entries for which liquidation is already considered “final,” leaving a major unanswered question for importers with completed entries on which final payments have already been collected by CBP.
According to the government, importers have deposited or paid IEEPA-based duties on over 53 million entries and, as of March 4, 2026, about 20.1 million of those entries remained unliquidated.
The CIT is requiring CBP to issue regular status updates on its progress towards a refund system.
What Comes Next for Importers?
Importers might expect:
- delays in refund processing and payment due to ongoing litigation and technical hurdles;
- continued uncertainty regarding refunds on entries subject to “final” liquidation;
- further litigation developments and political disputes, including suits by importers and other interested parties seeking certainty on refunds and challenging new tariffs; and
- continued tariff actions under Sections 122, 232, and 301.
