CBP has accepted about $138 billion in refund claims for tariffs the Supreme Court called unlawful, and a judge has ruled that open protests and closed-out entries are no bar to collecting
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has accepted about $137.9 billion in refund claims for the tariffs the Supreme Court struck down, as of an October 26 filing at the Court of International Trade. Importers have filed 315,069 claims, and 222,754 passed initial checks covering 44 million entries.
On October 29, Judge Richard Eaton ruled that importers whose customs protests are still open can collect through the third phase of the refund system without withdrawing those protests. He set a November 10 deadline for the government's next progress report and a closed settlement conference for November 12. On November 2, the Liberty Justice Center began covering lawsuit costs for up to 100 small importers whose closed-out entries block them from the system.
Why it matters
Businesses that paid tariffs the courts called unlawful are getting their money back; shoppers who paid higher prices likely won't see a cent.
Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.
No questions yet — be the first to ask.
U.S. Supreme Court
Front view of the United States Supreme Court building on a sunny day with blue sky and clouds.
The majestic facade of the United States Supreme Court under a clear blue sky.
Supreme Court tariff ruling: U.S. may have to refund $175B
LiveNOW from FOX
Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs; US Stops ...
The Financial Express
Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA tariffs, New Executive ...
Zonos
Images from Openverse under Creative Commons licenses. Videos from YouTube.
Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.
Fictional AI pastiche — not real quote.
"How extraordinary that the mightiest republic on earth, having conquered a continent, cannot manage to build a working portal — the Americans seized half a world from Mexico and Spain, yet their customs clerks are undone by a duplicate Tax ID error."
Fictional AI pastiche — not real quote.
"When a government builds a portal to return $166 billion it had no lawful right to collect, and that portal promptly collapses under the weight of its own ambition — well, I have built a great many things, and I can tell you that the surest sign of poor engineering is a structure that fails precisely when it is most needed."
The federal agency that collected the IEEPA duties and is running the largest customs refund operation in U.S. history; it has accepted about $137.9 billion in refunds for processing, logged 315,069 declarations, and widened Phase 3 to more importers.
The specialized federal court with jurisdiction over trade disputes that issued the initial ruling against IEEPA tariffs and is now supervising the refund operation.
The nonprofit legal organization that represented five small businesses in the lawsuit that ultimately reached the Supreme Court and struck down the IEEPA tariffs.
February 2025 November 2026
The group that won the Supreme Court case said it will pay filing fees and litigation costs for up to 100 small businesses whose finally liquidated entries need an individual court order before CBP will refund them. The program is part of its Project TERRA and does not cover general customs advice or ongoing refund management.
Judge Richard Eaton ruled that importers whose administrative protests are still open can claim refunds through CAPE Phase 3 without withdrawing them, whether or not the protest raises issues beyond IEEPA duties. He set a November 10 deadline for the government's next CAPE progress report and a closed settlement conference for November 12.
A group of 10 House Democrats asked CBP to approve IEEPA refund claims faster so importers with liquidated shipments do not miss the agency's deadlines.
CBP trade programs director Brandon Lord told the trade court that 315,069 CAPE declarations had been submitted as of Oct. 23, with 222,754 passing validation and covering 44 million entries. About $137.9 billion in potential and certified refunds had been accepted for processing, and Phase 3 had 3,960 accepted declarations covering 15,834,190 entries.
Judge Richard Eaton granted the government's consent motion and moved the deadline for a proposed scheduling order in Freestyle World v. United States to November 5.
A federal judge ordered CBP to reopen import entries it had treated as final so importers in litigation can claim IEEPA refunds. The order covers entries already past liquidation.
Aditya Birla Chemicals and Pack Perfect moved at the Court of International Trade for a CAPE Phase 4 covering Type 03 entries, which carry antidumping and countervailing duties; the National Seafood Association joined and asked that refunds arrive without wiping out AD/CVD liability. They say CBP's system already strips out the IEEPA duty while keeping the remaining duties, taxes and fees.
Judge Richard Eaton certified a class of importers who paid IEEPA duties between February 1, 2025 and February 19, 2026 and did not file their own suits, in Freestyle World, Inc. v. CBP. The order directs no refunds; a proposed schedule is due October 22.
CBP began taking refund claims for entries more than 80 days past liquidation, covering about $11.4 billion in duties. Only plaintiffs who gave CBP their importer-of-record numbers by July 31 can use it.
In its latest sworn declaration to the Court of International Trade, CBP said 20,362 refunds worth about $1.1 billion were unpaid because importers had no bank account on file. The agency had approved about $126 billion in refunds, current through Oct. 2.
In a September 11 report, CBP said about $122 billion in refunds, including interest, had been completed, certified, and sent to the Treasury for disbursement. Some 286,044 CAPE declarations had been received; more than 20,000 refunds worth $1.3 billion were held up by missing banking details.
CBP said roughly $100 billion in duties and interest had been processed and sent to the Treasury, with about $128.68 billion in the system; more than 252,000 refund declarations had been submitted as of July 31.
Importers began receiving tariff refund checks for duties the Supreme Court struck down in February, weeks after CBP launched the CAPE portal.
CBP launches Phase 1 of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system, enabling importers to file refund claims covering $127 billion in IEEPA duties through the ACE Secure Data Portal.
Within hours of the 8:00 AM launch, the CAPE portal displayed 'high volume' error messages, produced duplicate Tax ID errors, and left some importers unable to access their accounts. Trade attorneys warned that delays from technical failures can cause importers to permanently lose refund eligibility. The Main Street Alliance called for the administration to streamline the process for small businesses without legal resources.
The Court of International Trade heard oral arguments in Oregon v. Trump and Burlap & Barrel, Inc. v. Trump, two cases challenging the constitutional and statutory validity of the 15% Section 122 tariffs Trump imposed as a replacement for the struck-down IEEPA duties. No ruling timeline was set, but the court ruled on the IEEPA tariffs just 15 days after oral argument.
CBP reports that 56,497 importers have enrolled in the automatic refund system, representing 82% of entries with IEEPA duty payments.
Judge Eaton broadens the refund order to include finally liquidated entries — those that had already completed the full liquidation cycle and protest period — ensuring no importer is left out.
CBP announces it will create a centralized electronic refund process, sparing importers from having to file individual lawsuits to reclaim duties.
Judge Eaton orders CBP to liquidate and reliquidate all entries subject to IEEPA duties without regard to those duties, directing the agency to build a refund mechanism.
In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, Chief Justice Roberts writes for a six-justice majority that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. The decision invalidates all tariff revenue collected under IEEPA — an estimated $166 billion.
Hours after the ruling, Trump announces new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, set at 15% globally — the maximum allowed. Section 122 imposes a 150-day time limit.
The Court of International Trade rules that it has the power to order reliquidation and refunds if the Supreme Court holds the IEEPA tariffs unlawful, and that it will retain jurisdiction over claims for the two-year statute of limitations.
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the companion case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump.
The en banc Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the CIT ruling, agreeing that IEEPA does not give the president power to levy import duties.
The CIT rules that Trump overstepped his authority by using IEEPA to impose tariffs and orders the Liberation Day tariffs vacated.
The Liberty Justice Center and law professor Ilya Somin file V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump in the Court of International Trade on behalf of five importers facing potential bankruptcy.
Trump signs Executive Order 14257, declaring a national emergency over the trade deficit and imposing IEEPA tariffs on nearly all countries — 10% baseline starting April 5, with higher rates for major trading partners starting April 9.
The administration publishes IEEPA-based tariffs on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada, citing the opioid crisis. It marks the first time IEEPA has ever been used to impose tariffs.
Discussed by: Trade law firms (Covington, Holland & Knight), CBP's own projections
If the CAPE system performs as designed and CBP meets its 60-to-90-day processing target, the bulk of Phase 1's $127 billion could be returned by July or August 2026. Phase 2 would follow for remaining entries. This outcome would provide a significant cash infusion to importers who have carried the cost for over a year, though questions remain about whether consumers who paid higher prices will see any benefit.
Discussed by: Cato Institute, Morgan Lewis, trade litigation attorneys
The sheer scale — 53 million entries, $166 billion — could overwhelm CBP's systems. Compliance reviews could flag large numbers of claims. If delays stretch beyond 90 days, importers may seek court orders compelling faster action, and the CIT could impose deadlines or penalties. The 18% of entries not covered in Phase 1 remain in limbo until later phases are built.
Discussed by: Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), Brookings Institution, Congressional Research Service
The Supreme Court ruling exposed a gap: Congress never explicitly authorized presidents to impose tariffs through emergency powers, yet presidents have broad trade authority under other statutes. Lawmakers could use this moment to either expand presidential tariff power with clearer statutory language or restrict it further. The 150-day clock on Section 122 tariffs creates a natural forcing function for congressional action by mid-July 2026.
Discussed by: Global Trade Alert, Duane Morris, Perkins Coie
Trump signaled that the 150-day Section 122 tariffs are a bridge to Section 301 investigations under the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs in response to unfair trade practices without the time limits or rate caps. If the administration launches and concludes 301 investigations before Section 122 expires, it could reimpose tariffs at or above previous IEEPA levels on a country-by-country basis — this time on firmer legal ground.
Discussed by: Trade attorneys cited by CBS News and Fortune; Main Street Alliance
The CAPE portal's bumpy launch — featuring high-volume errors, duplicate Tax ID failures, and multi-hour CBP hold times — could have consequences beyond inconvenience. Trade attorneys have warned that processing delays tied to technical errors can cause importers to miss filing windows and permanently forfeit refund eligibility. Small businesses without customs brokers or legal counsel face the greatest exposure, as the CSV-based filing process assumes substantial trade compliance expertise.
Discussed by: Plaintiffs' attorneys; BBC News
Individuals have filed federal class actions against Ray-Ban maker EssilorLuxottica and FedEx, plus one against Costco in the Western District of Washington, arguing importers who passed tariff costs to shoppers should pass refunds back. Costco says it plans to use refunds to lower prices; FedEx says it will return money to shippers; other companies have made no such pledge.
Discussed by: National Law Review; Inside Trade
The October order lets importers in litigation recover IEEPA duties on entries CBP had treated as final. Applied widely, it could push accepted claims beyond the roughly $134.7 billion already in the CAPE pipeline.
Discussed by: Troutman Pepper Locke; Davis Wright Tremaine
Judge Eaton certified the class on October 8 and said he hoped it would lead to reliquidation of all the entries. Certification alone orders no refunds, the government is expected to appeal, and a classwide order would open payments on entries that are closed today.
Discussed by: Aditya Birla Chemicals, Pack Perfect and the National Seafood Association, in a motion at the Court of International Trade
The plaintiffs argue the IEEPA duty on these entries is unlawful and will be refunded, so only the timing is in dispute, and that CBP's system already strips the IEEPA line while preserving AD/CVD liability. They also say Commerce keeps deducting the unrefunded IEEPA duty from U.S. price in dumping calculations, which inflates future antidumping rates until CBP pays.
3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Harbor Maintenance Tax — a 0.125% ad valorem charge on cargo shipped through U.S. ports — violated the Export Clause of the Constitution when applied to exports. The government had collected the tax from exporters for over a decade before the Court struck it down.
The government was required to refund all unlawfully collected payments to exporters, including interest. A claims process was established through Customs.
The case established the principle that the government must return unlawfully collected trade-related payments in full. It became the key precedent cited by importers seeking IEEPA tariff refunds.
This is the closest legal precedent to the current situation — a Supreme Court ruling invalidating a trade-related government charge and triggering a refund process through Customs. However, the IEEPA refund dwarfs it in scale: $166 billion versus roughly $730 million.
During the Korean War, President Truman ordered the federal seizure of U.S. steel mills to prevent a strike that he said threatened national security. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the president lacked authority to seize private property without congressional authorization, even during a national emergency.
The steel mills were returned to their owners. The steelworkers went on strike for 53 days.
Justice Jackson's concurrence established the foundational framework for analyzing presidential power — a three-tier test that courts still use today, including in the IEEPA tariff cases.
Both cases involve a president invoking emergency authority to take extraordinary economic action that the Supreme Court ultimately found exceeded executive power. The IEEPA ruling echoes Youngstown's core holding: emergency declarations do not give the president powers that Congress has not granted.
Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, raising duties on over 20,000 imported goods despite a petition from 1,028 economists urging a veto. Trading partners retaliated, and U.S. exports fell 61% in three years. In 1934, Congress passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, delegating tariff-setting authority to the president to negotiate reductions — the origin of modern presidential trade authority.
Global trade collapsed. Senator Smoot and Representative Hawley both lost their seats.
Congress effectively surrendered direct control over tariff rates, creating the broad presidential trade authority that persists today — and that the IEEPA case now constrains.
The IEEPA ruling is the most significant judicial check on presidential tariff authority since Congress delegated that power 90 years ago. The 1934 delegation created the system; the 2026 ruling defined its outer boundary.