On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the form of tariffs imposed by the President. Slip opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf. While the legality of the tariff regime is now resolved, a practical question immediately confronts importers: how to preserve rights and recover duties paid. The Supreme Court has not addressed the question of refund, but importers should take affirmative steps now to preserve potential refund rights.
Before the Supreme Court’s decision, many importers filed suit at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) based on 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) jurisdiction (defined here as “Residual Jurisdiction”), arguing that the traditional protest process was manifestly inadequate because U.S. Customs and Board Protection (CBP) generally lacks authority to disregard presumptively legal tariffs.
By contrast, the traditional “Protest Jurisdiction” route to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) requires a protest to CBP within 180 days after liquidation of entries. If CBP denies the protest, suit must be filed at the CIT within 180 days after the denial notice. Courts often resist attempts to invoke Residual Jurisdiction as an “end run” when the protest remedy is available and adequate.
Accordingly, importers may need to take immediate action and should review liquidation dates and consult with legal counsel. The appropriate legal strategy depends on timing and careful analysis.
We encourage affected importers to contact us to assist with preserving refund rights.
Eric P. Sando is an associate with Earp Cohn P.C., licensed in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, who advises domestic and international clients on corporate, litigation, and cross-border legal matters. Eric’s practice includes counseling businesses of all sizes, including international companies, and he is admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of International Trade.
