The refund order is real, but so is the risk of losing your right to collect if you don't take steps to protect it now.
What Happened in Court Today
On March 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) held a hearing on the IEEPA tariff litigation. After the hearing, the court issued a direct order to the U.S. government: refund the IEEPA duties.
Specifically, the court ordered that:
- Any unliquidated customs entries that included IEEPA duties must be liquidated without those duties applied, meaning importers won't owe them going forward.
- Any liquidated entries where the liquidation isn't yet final must be reliquidated without the IEEPA duties, meaning refunds should flow back to importers.
The presiding judge made the government's obligation crystal clear during the hearing: CBP must refund all IEEPA duties collected from importers.
A follow-up conference is scheduled for March 6, 2026, to work out details around entries that have already become fully final, as well as how to handle refunds for importers who don't currently have cases pending before the CIT.
Here's the Catch: A Court Order Isn't the Same as a Guaranteed Refund
This is where the concept of a protective refund claim becomes essential.
The government is widely expected to immediately appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and ask for a stay, a pause on the refund order while the appeal plays out. The government is also expected to argue that processing mass refunds would be extremely burdensome on CBP.
Michael Williams, an attorney with experience in federal tax refunds, puts the risk plainly: today's CIT order is a reviewable decision, meaning a higher court can overturn or modify it. If the case eventually works its way back to the Supreme Court and the justices decide that automatic refunds aren't required, any importer who didn't formally protect their claim in the meantime could find themselves with no legal recourse to recover what they paid.
A protective refund claim is how you guard against that outcome. Rather than waiting to see how the appeals process plays out, you're putting yourself on record now, preserving your legal rights regardless of which way the higher courts ultimately rule.
What a Protective Refund Claim Looks Like in Practice
There's no single form you fill out. The right approach depends on the status of your entries. But in general, trade attorneys are advising importers to consider a few key moves:
Filing an action in the CIT puts your case on record and protects your specific rights independent of the broader litigation. It ensures that if refunds are ultimately ordered, you're in the pool, not on the sideline.
Filing a protest on liquidated entries within 180 days of liquidation is the administrative version of the same protection. It's your formal notice to CBP that you're disputing the IEEPA duties and preserving your right to a refund while the legal process continues.
Confirming your ACE account is set up for electronic refunds is a simpler but easy-to-overlook step. ACE (the Automated Commercial Environment) is the CBP system through which refunds are processed. If your account isn't configured, you could face delays even after everything else is resolved.
None of this is one-size-fits-all, and the right strategy depends on your specific entries and situation. But the through-line is the same: a protective refund claim is about making sure that if and when refunds become available, you haven't inadvertently given up your right to them.
Why Acting Now Matters
The CIT hearing today was genuinely significant, a federal court directly ordering the government to return money collected under authority the Supreme Court has already declared unlawful. That's a meaningful moment.
But the road from "court order" to "money in your account" is rarely a straight line, especially when the federal government is on the hook for potentially billions of dollars. Expect the appeal. Expect delays. Expect the government to push back at every stage.
This article is based on reporting from Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP (GDLSK), published March 4, 2026. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified trade attorney for guidance specific to your situation.