The IEEPA tariff refund process took a significant step forward on March 2, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted plaintiffs’ request for immediate issuance of its mandate. As a result, the case now formally returns to the Court of International Trade (CIT), where proceedings will begin to determine final relief — including the potential refund of invalidated IEEPA tariffs.

The CAFC order granted the motion for immediate issuance of the mandate and denied the government’s request to delay the process  (motion).

This development follows the Supreme Court’s decision striking down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Now, attention turns to the refund phase.

What Did the Court Decide?

In its March 2 order, the CAFC:

  • Granted plaintiffs’ motion for immediate issuance of the mandate

  • Denied the government’s request to stay or delay the mandate

  • Dissolved the prior stay that had been in effect since August 29, 2025

  • Ordered that the mandates issue forthwith

In practical terms, this means the case is officially returned to the Court of International Trade to address remedies.

What Happens Next at the Court of International Trade?

The Court of International Trade (CIT) will now determine:

  • Whether refunds will be issued

  • The scope of eligible importers

  • Whether refunds will be universal or limited to named plaintiffs

  • How CBP will administer the refund process

  • Whether refunds include statutory interest

Importantly, the government previously argued against expedited and universal relief. Therefore, the refund process may still face procedural complexity.

What This Means for Importers

The ruling does not automatically trigger refunds. Instead, it begins the formal remedy phase.

Importers should be aware of several critical considerations:

1️⃣ Refund Eligibility May Be Limited

Courts sometimes limit relief to named plaintiffs unless broader relief is justified. Importers not party to the original litigation should closely monitor developments.

2️⃣ Timing Remains Uncertain

Although the CAFC acted quickly, the CIT must now conduct proceedings to define the refund mechanism.

3️⃣ Liquidation and Protest Deadlines Still Matter

Importers should continue:

  • Monitoring liquidation notices

  • Filing timely protests where appropriate

  • Evaluating potential independent litigation options

4️⃣ Replacement Tariffs Remain Possible

Even with IEEPA tariffs invalidated, the administration retains authority under:

  • Section 122 (temporary 150-day tariffs)

  • Section 232 (national security tariffs)

  • Section 301 (unfair trade practices)

  • Section 338 (unfair foreign practices)

Therefore, while IEEPA duties have been struck down, overall tariff exposure may continue under alternate statutory authorities.

Why This Decision Is Significant

The CAFC’s immediate issuance of the mandate signals judicial momentum toward resolving the refund question. By denying the government’s request for delay, the court has accelerated the path to final determination.

However, the complexity of administering refunds — potentially involving billions of dollars in collected duties — means the process may still take time.

Key Takeaways

  • The CAFC has sent the IEEPA tariff case back to the Court of International Trade.

  • The CIT will determine the refund framework.

  • Refund scope and eligibility remain unresolved.

  • Importers should remain proactive and monitor liquidation deadlines.

  • Replacement tariffs under other statutes remain in effect or possible.