IEEPA Tariffs (2025–2026): Timeline, Litigation & Refunds

Informational only — not legal advice.

The IEEPA tariff program ran from February 2025 through February 2026, when the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs on imports. CBP ended IEEPA duty collection on February 24, 2026 and immediately began collecting a Section 122 replacement surcharge. Refunds are not automatic — they remain procedural, entry-specific, and tied to importer-of-record mechanics. CBP is building the CAPE workflow to process refunds.

A note on precision (why this page is link-heavy)

This page is written to be source-first. Where a statement matters to rights, deadlines, or dollars, it should be anchored to a primary source (court opinion/order, CBP guidance, or the text of the governing executive order/statute).

If you want the “ten-second” operational answer, start here: /learn/ieepa-refunds-start-here.

Definitions (terms used consistently below)

• “IEEPA tariffs”: additional import duties imposed under executive orders citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.) between early 2025 and the post‑decision wind‑down in February 2026.
• “Section 122 surcharge”: the temporary import surcharge imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2132) that began when CBP ended IEEPA duty collection. (CBP CSMS #67844987)
• “Liquidation”: CBP’s final calculation/assessment of duties for an entry (the concept that triggers many timing rules). (19 U.S.C. §1504)

Timeline (high-signal table)

Phase 1 (February–March 2025): the first IEEPA duty orders (fentanyl/border framing)

In February 2025, the administration imposed new additional duties under IEEPA in three related orders covering Canada, Mexico, and China. (Canada order, Mexico order, China order)

The legal move (in plain English)

The core legal theory was that IEEPA’s delegation of power to “regulate” various transactions during a declared emergency could encompass the imposition of additional import duties as a tool to regulate importation.

Why this matters in practice (even if you don’t care about theory)

The “fentanyl/border” orders were not static: within days, the White House issued “progress” orders pausing some duties and modifying implementation timing. (North progress, South progress)

For importers, that early volatility is the first reason document-based confirmation matters: “what you paid” is ultimately an entry summary question (Form 7501 / ACE data), not a “headline rate” question.

Phase 2 (April 2025 onward): reciprocal tariffs (trade deficit emergency framing)

On April 2, 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14257, which declared a national emergency arising from large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits and imposed additional ad valorem duties under a reciprocal-tariff framework. (EO 14257)

“Baseline + Annex I rates” and the retaliation/pause mechanism

EO 14257 created a baseline additional duty and contemplated country-specific increases. It also included a retaliation clause, and within a week a new order modified the HTSUS, escalated PRC rates, and temporarily suspended the Annex I country-specific rates for many other trading partners. (EO 14266)

This is one reason “IEEPA exposure” often cannot be answered from a single invoice line: timing rules and “in transit” carveouts can matter, and the applicable Chapter 99 heading can change over time.

Phase 3: litigation (what was challenged, in what court, and what the courts decided)

Court of International Trade (CIT): lead trial decision

In the lead CIT case, the court held the IEEPA tariffs unlawful. (CIT Slip Op. 25-66)

Federal Circuit (CAFC): en banc appellate decision

The Federal Circuit (en banc) affirmed. (CAFC opinion PDF)

Supreme Court: final merits decision

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held IEEPA does not authorize tariffs on imports. (Opinion PDF)

Critical precision point: the Supreme Court’s merits holding is the reason the IEEPA duties are invalid, but the opinion did not itself provide a uniform, automatic refund mechanism. Refunds still interact with customs procedures (and entry status) unless and until additional government/court action changes the workflow.

Phase 4: post‑Supreme Court (CBP operations, refund mechanics, and Section 122 litigation)

CBP operational changeover (Feb. 24, 2026)

CBP’s published operational guidance ended IEEPA duty collection and began a new Section 122 surcharge one minute later. (CSMS #67834313, CSMS #67844987)

“Refund mechanics” is a separate question

In early March 2026, the Federal Circuit ordered the mandate to issue forthwith. (CAFC order PDF)

Shortly thereafter, the CIT issued an order in Atmus Filtration that addressed liquidation/reliquidation steps and emphasized the importer-of-record frame for refunds. (Atmus order PDF)

Section 122 litigation begins (Mar. 5, 2026)

Separately, Section 122 (the replacement duty regime) became the subject of a new CIT complaint by a multistate coalition. (Complaint PDF)

On March 9, 2026, private plaintiffs Burlap and Barrel and Basic Fun filed a separate Section 122 complaint at the CIT. The complaint says the President reimposed a global 10% import tax under Section 122 and promised it would be raised to 15%. (Complaint PDF)

March 6 refund-process development

Two days after the March 4 Atmus order, CBP filed a declaration stating it was developing new ACE functionality to streamline and consolidate IEEPA refunds and interest payments on an importer basis, rather than issuing more than 53 million separate entry-specific refunds. CBP said it was making all possible efforts to have the new functionality ready in 45 days. (Declaration PDF)

Later the same day, the CIT ordered the government to file a short progress report on that refund-process buildout by 2:00 p.m. EDT on March 12, 2026. (Order PDF)

March 6 refund-suit follow-on: Nintendo files at the CIT

Also on March 6, 2026, Nintendo of America Inc. filed a direct complaint at the Court of International Trade seeking prompt refunds with interest for IEEPA duties it says it paid on imports from affected countries. The complaint alleges the challenged IEEPA measures had, by that point, produced collection of more than $200 billion in tariffs and asks the CIT to order refunds regardless of liquidation status. (Complaint PDF)

March 12 refund-process development: CAPE gets named and measured

On March 12, 2026, CBP filed a second declaration in Atmus identifying its proposed ACE-based refund workflow as CAPE ("Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries"). The declaration says CAPE is being built around four integrated components:

• a Claim Portal for importers and brokers to submit refund requests
• Mass Processing to remove IEEPA HTS numbers and recalculate duties
• Review and Liquidation/Reliquidation
• Refund

As of March 11, 2026, CBP reported those components were 70%, 40%, 80%, and 60% complete, respectively. The declaration also says the refund component would consolidate payments by liquidation/reliquidation date and route them to the Importer of Record or its Form 4811 designee. (Declaration PDF)

Later that day, the CIT continued the suspension of immediate compliance and ordered another short progress report by 2:00 p.m. EDT on March 19, 2026. (Order PDF)

What this means for you (neutral, protective guidance)

1) Do not assume “refund owed” means “refund paid to you”

Even where courts and CBP actions move toward unwinding the IEEPA duties, refunds still flow through the customs entry account and the party that is the Importer of Record on the relevant entries.

If a carrier/broker advanced duties and billed them back (common in express contexts), the “refund recipient” question can become contested. If you are approaching deadlines or facing disputes over access/authorization, consult qualified customs counsel rather than relying on informal assumptions.

2) Preserve rights entry-by-entry (liquidation + the 180‑day clock)

CBP’s protest statute and guidance are where “deadlines” become real in practice. (19 U.S.C. §1514, CBP — Protests)

If you want the practical version: /learn/deadlines-liquidation-180-day-clock.

3) Start with documents (because arguments don’t substitute for entry records)

If you have any of the following, you can usually start building a defensible “entry list”:

• Form 7501 PDFs (best)
• ACE entry summary exports (best)
• Carrier/broker “customs invoice” or statement (often enough to extract entry numbers and then request the 7501/ACE export)

See: /learn/customs-documents-field-guide.