Tariff refunds after the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling: how CBP's claim process works, and what a new class action asks for

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, together with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections. The holding fits in one sentence: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. U.S. Customs and Border Protection says it is refunding duties collected under that authority "as authorized by court order or applicable law."

What the Court decided

The cases challenged two sets of tariffs President Trump imposed in 2025 after declaring national emergencies. The first, tied to drug trafficking, put 25 percent on most imports from Canada and Mexico and 10 percent on most imports from China. The second, the "reciprocal" tariffs tied to trade deficits, set a duty of at least 10 percent on imports from every trading partner, with higher rates for dozens of countries.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment and wrote the opinion. Six justices (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson) joined the parts that say the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to lay taxes and duties, that the government conceded the President has no inherent authority to impose tariffs in peacetime, and that IEEPA's power to "regulate . . . importation" does not include the power to tax. Other parts of his opinion were joined by only Justices Gorsuch and Barrett. Those parts rely on the major questions doctrine: when Congress has delegated tariff power, it has done so in explicit terms and with strict limits, and in IEEPA's half century no president had used it to impose tariffs. Several justices also wrote separately, including concurrences by Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, Kagan and Jackson.

Three justices dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, wrote that "[t]he tariffs have generated vigorous policy debates. Those policy debates are not for the Federal Judiciary to resolve," and that "[l]ike quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool" to regulate importation. Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, on the ground that the power to impose duties on imports can be delegated to the President.

How refunds work

CBP's refund page says it is processing refunds through a system called CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries). Claims are filed as CAPE declarations in CBP's ACE portal. Refunds are combined instead of being paid entry by entry, and they include interest. CBP is rolling the system out in phases:

• Phase 1: certain unliquidated entries and certain entries within 80 days of liquidation.
• Phase 2: entries flagged for reconciliation where the reconciliation entry isn't yet on file.

CBP says valid refunds are generally issued 60 to 90 days after a CAPE declaration is accepted, unless a compliance concern needs more review.

Who gets the money, and who doesn't

CBP pays refunds only to the importer of record, or to a party the importer has designated on CBP Form 4811. Either one must have U.S. bank account information in ACE. Asked whether it is sending refunds to consumers who paid higher prices because of the tariffs, CBP's answer is no. It can refund only those two parties.

CBP also warns of refund scams and says claims go through a CAPE declaration in ACE.

The class action: what the Oct. 8 order does, and doesn't do

On October 8, Judge Richard K. Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade certified a class in Freestyle World, Inc. v. CBP (Slip Op. 26-123). The class covers all importers of record that paid duties under the challenged tariff orders between Feb. 1, 2025, and Feb. 19, 2026, except those that filed their own suits to recover IEEPA duties.

The order decides who is in the class and who represents it. It doesn't award refunds. The relief the plaintiff seeks is an injunction directing the liquidation or reliquidation of the class's entries without IEEPA duties, which would lead to refunds. The government opposed certification, arguing that the class requirements weren't met and that the motion was untimely. The court wrote that "there has been no merits determination in Freestyle," because the Supreme Court's ruling "has yet to be applied to Freestyle's facts." It set a closed conference for Oct. 13 and told the parties to jointly propose a schedule by Oct. 22, including when the government must answer the complaint. That deadline was pushed back: on the government's Oct. 21 consent motion, Judge Richard Eaton extended it to Nov. 5, Export Compliance Daily reported on Oct. 26. As of Oct. 27 we have not found a schedule or a government answer, and we could not open the court docket directly.

The order gives the court's reasons for acting. Citing an Oct. 6 declaration from CBP official Brandon Lord, it says that as of Oct. 2, about $136.6 billion in potential and certified refunds had been accepted for processing in CAPE and about $126 billion in duties plus interest had been refunded, more than 75 percent of the $166 billion in duties the court describes as unlawfully collected. We could not confirm those figures against any CBP page, which gives no totals. The court also wrote that some importers, which it believes are "overwhelmingly small importers," haven't used CAPE, and that CAPE doesn't accept some kinds of entries, including finally liquidated entries of importers that didn't sue.

Sources

• Supreme Court, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 (PDF)
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection, IEEPA duty refunds
• U.S. Court of International Trade, Freestyle World, Inc. v. CBP, Slip Op. 26-123 (PDF)

Drafted with AI assistance from primary sources. Written and edited by The Whole Read newsroom under Monsaur Othman's editorial standards. Read how we use AI, our editorial policy and our corrections policy.