UPDATE: On March 6, 2026, at a status conference in Atmus Filtration, the CIT paused their March 4 order requiring the CBP to start issuing IEEPA refunds immediately in response to a declaration by CBP that explained its Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”) system limitations as well as other limitations that prevent it from complying with the order. The declaration also explained that CBP intends to modify its ACE system to include new functionality to streamline the refund claim process and that CBP expected it can implement this new functionality in 45 days.

The CBP stated that it: “anticipates that the process will involve the following steps:

• The importer files a declaration in ACE that includes a list of entries on which IEEPA duties were paid.
• ACE runs a series of validations on each entry within the declaration and automatically re-calculates the duty owed without the IEEPA tariffs (with applicable interest).
• CBP verifies the declaration and processes refunds as soon as practicable.
• ACE automatically finalizes (liquidates or reliquidates) the entries.
• ACE automatically aggregates the refunds with interest by importer and liquidation date.
• CBP certifies the refunds.
• The Department of the Treasury issues IEEPA refunds electronically.”

UPDATE: On March 5, 2026, in Oregon v. Trump, twenty-two states and two governors filed suit in the CIT challenging the newly imposed Section 122 tariffs.[1]

On March 4, 2026, in Atmus Filtration, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) ordered that:

“with respect to any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to the IEEPA duties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is hereby directed to liquidate those entries without regard to the IEEPA duties. Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final shall be reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties.”[2]

Liquidation is final 180 days after the liquidation date unless an administrative protest was timely filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. At present, it is not clear whether the CIT’s order applies only to importers that filed suit with the CIT or whether it applies to all importers that paid IEEPA tariffs. However, based on an initial reading of the order, it appears intended to apply to all importers including those that have not filed suit at the CIT. The Government has represented that any validated refund of IEEPA duties would include interest.[3] It is also not clear whether the Government will appeal to the Federal Circuit and request a stay of the CIT’s order. In addition, it remains open to the Government to file a petition before the U.S. Supreme Court for a rehearing of its IEEPA decision in Learning Resources.

Additional information on Steps a Business Should Take Now to Preserve Its Rights to IEEPA Tariff Refunds in Light of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Learning Resources is available on the Kean Miller Louisiana and Texas Law Blogs.

For additional information, please contact Jaye Calhoun at (504) 293-5936, Stephen Hanemann at (504) 620-3342, Willie Kolarik at (225) 382-3441, or Divya Jeswant at (504) 293-5766.

Jaye Calhoun, Willie Kolarik, and Divya Jeswant are members of Kean Miller’s Tax group, counseling a variety of clients on federal, state and local tax (SALT), and estate planning matters. Stephen Hanemann is a member of the firm’s Offshore Energy & Marine group, focusing on international trade and regularly advising clients navigating complex global regulatory, finance, and logistics challenges and opportunities. Based in the firm’s New Orleans and Baton Rouge offices, these attorneys collaborate across practice areas to deliver strategic, business-focused counsel to companies operating at the intersection of trade, taxation, and international commerce.

[1] Oregon v. Trump, No. 26-cv-01472 (Ct. Int’l Trade March 5, 2026).

[2] Atmus Filtration Inc. v. U.S., No. 26-cv-01259 (Ct. Int’l Trade March 4, 2026) (available at: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.19346/gov.uscourts.cit.19346.21.0.pdf).

[3] See Declaration of Brandon Lord In Response to the Court’s Questions of March 3, 2026, Atmus Filtration Inc. v. U.S., No. 26-cv-01259 (Ct. Int’l Trade March 4, 2026) (available at: assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rHOHCRS__Sps/v0).