Overview
On June 2, 2026, the Trump administration appealed a universal injunction issued by the US Court of International Trade (CIT). The injunction directed US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to reliquidate certain entries that had already been "finally liquidated," without applying tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The appeal primarily applied to importers that had not filed suit before the CIT. Below we discuss the timeline and scope of the appeal and its implications for importers.
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources Inc. et al. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Subsequently, the CIT entered an injunction on April 17, 2026 ordering CBP to refund IEEPA duties for (1) unliquidated entries; (2) liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final; and (3) any liquidated entries for which liquidation is final. The CIT had previously ordered the liquidation or reliquidation of such entries without regard to IEEPA duties.
In an effort to allow CBP to make certain programmatic changes to effectuate the order, the CIT stayed the injunction on April 20, 2026. On May 27, 2026, however, the CIT issued a Show Cause Order requesting briefing from the parties as to why the court should not remove the stay and order CBP to liquidate or reliquidate entries without regard to IEEPA duties.
In response, on May 29, 2026 the government submitted a statement to the CIT arguing that certain aspects of the injunction are unlawful. According to the government, three categories of entries have been affected by this injunction:
- First, the government did not contest the lawfulness of the injunction to refunds of those entries that are unliquidated or nonfinal; indeed, using its own authority and as ordered by the CIT, CBP stated that it was in the process of refunding approximately $85 billion of these tariffs through its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) module — over half the total amount of IEEPA tariffs paid.
- Second, for "finally liquidated" entries where importers have filed cases at the CIT, the government asserted that it does not have the authority to reliquidate these entries on its own and that the proper relief must be addressed through importer-specific judicial orders requiring reliquidation.
- Third, for "finally liquidated" entries for importers that have not brought suit at the CIT, the government argued that the CIT has entered an unlawful "universal injunction" ordering CBP to reliquidate final entries.
On June 2, 2026,the government appealed the CIT’s universal injunction to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the injunction exceeds the CIT’s jurisdiction and equitable authority under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., because the injunction applies to non-litigants, in part.
Specifically, in Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court held that "that universal injunctions are impermissible{.}" However, the CIT has previously explained that the Supreme Court’s holding does not apply to the refund orders at issue. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, the CIT explained that it has "exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims like those presented in this case." Thus, although the government argued that the CIT only has the authority to provide refunds for litigants for "finally liquidated" entries, the Court rejected the government’s argument, and explained that it also has the authority to provide relief to non-litigant parties.
In its May 29 statement to the CIT, the government also stated that it intends to seek a stay of the order to liquidate the "finally liquidated" entries. In its statement, the government clarified that it is not contesting the liquidation or reliquidation of entries of importers who have individually challenged the IEEPA tariffs at the CIT.
Finally, the government also appealed a May 27, 2026 order by the CIT requiring CBP Commissioner Rodney S. Scott to appear before it to answer the court’s questions as to the anticipated timeline of CBP’s compliance with the court's orders for the liquidation of entries. The government contends that it is unlawful for the CIT to sua sponte order the appearance of the CBP Commissioner, when other government officials could speak to the status of refunds.
Although the CIT acknowledged the government’s concerns, it rejected the government’s concern and explained that "Commissioner Scott’s testimony is necessary to ascertain if it is the Government’s policy to return all of the unlawfully collected duties either by complying with the court’s order, or by some other means—that is, if it is the Government’s policy to refund the duties to importers both large and small."
Future Considerations
- Appeal Timeline Undetermined – Although CBP Commissioner Scott has been ordered to appear before the CIT on June 9, 2026,the government has filed its petition for a writ of mandamus from the Federal Circuit to prevent Commissioner Scott from testifying at the CIT. Additionally, the government has appealed the "universal injunctions" and could seek a stay, preventing the injunction from taking effect.
- While the Federal Circuit could possibly rule on the mandamus petition prior to June 9th, the timeline of the Federal Circuit’s consideration of the appeal of the injunction is also unclear, and may take weeks or months to reach a final resolution to the issue of whether the injunction applies to unchallenged, "finally liquidated" entries.
- Importers Who Have Not Filed Suit at the CIT – Importers seeking to protect the maximum number of entries eligible for a refund should consider filing a protest with CBP and filing their own complaint at the CIT. Because it remains unclear when entries will become "final," importers should monitor the liquidation dates of their entries and file protests with CBP in a timely manner.
- Importers Who Have Filed Suit at the CIT – Although the CIT has lifted the stay and ordered CBP to provide refunds for liquidated and unliquidated entries, there will continue to be uncertainty about the applicable timeline, particularly for liquidated entries.
- As noted above, the government, however, stated that it could seek a stay of the injunction, except as to the particular importer plaintiffs in each case in which the Court has entered an injunction.
- For now, importers that have filed a complaint at the CIT need not take any further action, but should continue to monitor their entries’ liquidation timelines and file protests for any other necessary entries.
Steptoe's International Trade team is closely monitoring the refund process. If you need support evaluating what these developments mean for your business, or support with filing a CIT complaint or CBP protest, our team is ready to help.
