Tariff Turmoil: Refunds, Lawsuits and New Duties Ahead
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling has invalidated tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), prompting a surge in refund lawsuits at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The decision affects duties paid on imports from China, Canada, Mexico, and dozens of other countries, involving hundreds of billions of dollars in trade.
Trade attorneys from law firm Dykema discussed the implications during a webinar titled “2026 Tariff Turbulence: IEEPA Tariffs, Supreme Court Fallout & Refund Strategies.” The session, held on Thursday, featured attorneys Joanne Zimolzak, John Rhoades, and Tina Toma. They outlined the legal fallout and steps for importers navigating refunds.
The Supreme Court declared the use of IEEPA for these tariffs unlawful on February 20. This has led to approximately 2,000 lawsuits filed at the CIT seeking refunds. Judge Richard Eaton is presiding over all such cases.
Importers have filed protests due to uncertainties in the Trump administration’s planned claims process. Trade lawyers note unknown factors, including potential exclusions of certain tariff payments or challenges to the scope of judicial authority over refunds.
The CIT’s order requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to calculate refunds on both unliquidated and liquidated IEEPA-related tariffs. This directive applies universally to all importers of record who paid these duties, not just the named plaintiffs in the lawsuits.
By imposing specific obligations on CBP, the order simplifies the refund process. It reduces the administrative steps importers typically must take, such as filing individual protests or lawsuits, to recover duties.
Attorneys emphasized that while the IEEPA tariffs are struck down, tariffs will continue as a key element of U.S. trade policy. Future duties are expected under established authorities like Section 232 (national security), Section 301 (unfair trade practices), and Section 201 (safeguard measures). These require formal investigations and administrative procedures.
For truck drivers hauling import freight, this ruling introduces both opportunities and challenges. Refunds could lower landed costs for goods moving through ports and into the domestic supply chain, potentially stabilizing rates on import-heavy lanes.
However, the ongoing litigation and refund processes may delay cargo releases or create paperwork backlogs at border crossings. Drivers should anticipate extended wait times at facilities handling affected entries, as CBP implements refund calculations.
Importers are advised to track their entries closely. Filing protests remains a key step to preserve refund rights, especially for entries not fully covered by the CIT’s broad directive. The wording of Judge Eaton’s order may leave gaps for some of the millions of goods entries subject to IEEPA tariffs.
Preparing for new tariffs under Sections 232, 301, or 201 means monitoring announcements from the U.S. Trade Representative and Department of Commerce. These processes involve public notices, comment periods, and hearings, providing lead time for supply chain adjustments.
Truckers on cross-border routes from Canada and Mexico, or those pulling containers from West Coast ports with Chinese goods, face direct impacts. Refund litigation could tie up billions in duties, influencing freight volumes and pricing on these corridors.
The universal reach of the CIT order marks a significant development in trade law. It signals that courts may extend relief beyond specific plaintiffs in future tariff challenges, streamlining remedies for widespread duties.
Despite the spike in lawsuits, the order aims to minimize the need for further litigation by directing CBP to handle refunds administratively where possible. Companies must still verify coverage for their entries and act promptly on protests.
As the government develops its refund system, importers should document payments and consult trade counsel. Drivers can contribute by maintaining accurate logs of hauls involving tariffed goods, aiding importers in claims preparation.
Looking ahead, the shift away from IEEPA underscores reliance on procedural safeguards in tariff imposition. Sections 232, 301, and 201 have been used extensively in recent years, supporting tariffs on steel, aluminum, and various Chinese products.
For professional drivers, this environment demands vigilance on load specifics. Confirming tariff status with shippers helps avoid surprises at weigh stations or during audits. Stable trade policies under formal authorities could foster predictable freight flows.
The webinar attorneys stressed proactive measures: track entries, file protests, and strategize for incoming duties. These steps position importers—and their trucking partners—for smoother operations amid evolving trade rules.
With Judge Eaton overseeing consolidated cases, resolution timelines remain fluid. The volume of claims, from hundreds of thousands of importers, will test CBP’s capacity to process refunds efficiently.
Truck drivers play a vital role in this supply chain. Accurate delivery records support entry tracking, while flexibility on rerouted loads mitigates disruptions from policy shifts.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s IEEPA decision opens doors to refunds while signaling persistent tariffs under vetted legal frameworks. Importers and drivers alike must adapt to refund pursuits and prepare for duties ahead.