IEEPA Tariff Refund Uncertainty After Supreme Court Decision: Retailers Face Disclosure and Litigation Risks

The US Supreme Court’s recent invalidation of emergency-based tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) has created significant legal and business uncertainty. Since the February 20, 2026 ruling, emerging orders from the Court of International Trade (CIT) and government claims of administrative impossibility have further complicated these refund efforts.

Many retailers now find themselves facing emerging litigation risk from customers and consumer class action plaintiffs alleging that tariff costs were passed through and should now be returned. Retailers may find themselves targeted for consumer class actions, given the consumer-facing focus of their businesses. Public statements regarding refund strategies, especially those directed to customers or investors, may create unintended exposure. Retailers can work to navigate this rapidly changing environment by keeping in mind key risk areas and certain practical considerations.

THE EVOLVING REFUND LANDSCAPE: INCREASINGLY LIKELY BUT PROCEDURALLY UNCERTAIN

While the Court’s ruling clarified that IEEPA does not authorize the imposition of tariffs, it did not automatically translate into immediate or universal refunds for importers. The Supreme Court’s holding left many questions unresolved, including those related to procedural mechanisms, treatment of liquidated versus unliquidated entries, timeline for refunds, payment with interest, and scope of eligibility.

On March 4, 2026, CIT Judge Richard Eaton issued a sweeping order directing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to begin paying refunds immediately. This directive extended relief to all affected importers, regardless of whether they had joined the pending litigation. However, following a closed-door hearing on March 6, the court suspended the "immediate compliance" portion of that order.

The pause comes in response to a CBP declaration warning that the current Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system cannot handle the "unprecedented volume" of refunds to over 53 million entries. According to the government, manual processing would be "extraordinarily difficult" and would divert critical staff from other security and trade duties.

To resolve this bottleneck, CBP is developing a new, dedicated ACE functionality called the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE), designed specifically for IEEPA refunds, with a target launch in approximately 45 days. The agency claims this new process will require minimal importer submissions, ensure accuracy through automated system validations, and include a review period to resolve discrepancies and confirm that no other debts are owed to the government. While this 45-day window offers a clearer timeline, it also signals that immediate liquidity from these refunds remains out of reach for at least the next several weeks.

Though CBP efforts to remedy the ACE administrative issues are promising, the conflicting judicial signals from CIT leave the landscape ambiguous. This lack of clarity compounds the existing confusion and fails to resolve the procedural questions left unanswered by the Supreme Court’s February 20 ruling. As a result, importers still have little understanding of the specific mechanics or timing for their recovery.

EMERGING CONSUMER CLASS ACTION RISK

While the legal path to IEEPA tariff refunds remains fraught with administrative hurdles and judicial ambiguity, customer litigation risk poses an additional threat in this space.

Plaintiffs’ firms have already begun filing or threatening consumer class actions against importers, alleging tariff costs were passed through to consumers after companies publicly represented that price increases were tariff-driven. Plaintiffs have asserted that they, as customers, are entitled to reimbursement from any refunds an importer obtains.

As class actions and other customer litigation efforts gain traction, companies must be diligent and careful in their representations. Plaintiffs’ counsel have already begun citing public earnings call statements, press releases, and website FAQs in demand letters and pleadings. Even well-intentioned or preliminary statements about refund intentions may later be characterized as commitments or admissions. Companies that publicly signal an intent to pursue refunds, especially those suggesting refunds might be “returned to customers,” may unintentionally invite follow-on litigation if recovery is delayed, partial, or ultimately not shared.

HEIGHTENED SENSITIVITY FOR EARNINGS CALLS AND INVESTOR COMMUNICATIONS

Proper care with customer or public-facing communications is particularly urgent for publicly traded companies. CEOs and CFOs should be carefully prepared for upcoming earnings calls. Analysts are likely to seek clarity on several fronts, including the company’s intent to pursue refunds and the estimated magnitude of any potential recovery. Executives should also expect questions on whether the company plans to pass these funds to customers or use them to bolster margins and earnings guidance. Finally, leadership will be expected to address how they account for these potential refunds within their current financial statements.

Executives should take care not to make premature specific statements, which may create disclosure risk under securities laws, particularly where recovery is uncertain or contingent. At the same time, overly optimistic statements may expose companies to shareholder litigation if expectations are not met.

Careful coordination among legal, finance, investor relations, and communications teams is essential to protect against further litigation.

ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING CONSIDERATIONS

Companies should also evaluate how to treat potential refunds for accounting purposes. For instance, companies must evaluate whether recording a receivable is appropriate given the current recovery uncertainties. This evaluation includes reviewing disclosure obligations for contingent assets and examining how refund strategies intersect with pricing decisions. Above all, firms must ensure complete consistency between their active litigation strategy and their public financial reporting.

There is a growing market for the sale of refund claims. If a company has sold all or a portion of its refund claims in this market, special consideration should be given to accounting for these transactions. These transactions could also complicate the public messaging around how refunds will be applied or shared with customers.

The decision to pursue recovery from the government is necessarily related to determining whether and how any recovered funds would be shared with customers. This interconnectedness means decisions in one domain may materially affect litigation posture in the other, and it is important that importers consult with their legal teams to determine the proper strategy.

BRAND AND REPUTATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

Beyond litigation and securities exposure, retailers face brand risk. Public narratives that framed prior price increases as “tariff-driven” may resurface in media coverage or social media campaigns if refunds are pursued but not distributed to customers. Companies should anticipate coordinated campaigns by consumer advocates and plaintiffs’ firms seeking to leverage public sentiment.

While CIT works to offer clear directives to CBP, and consequently to importers, about the status of IEEPA refunds, companies are facing investor and customer questions now. Public communications must be calibrated to reflect the substantial uncertainty that remains. CBP’s promise of a more efficient system in 45 days is encouraging, but companies must remain cautious in their public posture to avoid inviting opportunistic litigation.

HOW WE CAN HELP

Our global international trade team and commercial litigators are closely monitoring tariff developments and can assist clients with the following practical steps:

• Conducting a Privileged Risk Assessment: Evaluating refund eligibility, potential exposure to consumer claims, and securities risk in a coordinated and privileged setting
• Preparing Earnings Call Messaging in Advance: Developing carefully vetted language addressing refund uncertainty without overcommitting
• Auditing Prior Public Statements: Reviewing prior earnings calls, investor presentations, customer communications, and marketing materials referencing tariffs or price increases
• Aligning Legal and Accounting Positions: Ensuring consistency between refund strategy, accounting treatment, and public disclosures
• Advising on Consumer Class Action and Shareholder Securities Litigation Activity: Track emerging filings and demand letters to assess litigation trends and theories

For more information, please refer to our prior LawFlashes US Supreme Court Limits Presidential Tariff Powers and US-India Trade Deal Cuts Tariffs, Eases Tensions.

STAY INFORMED

Visit our US Administration Policies and Priorities resource center and subscribe to our mailing list for the latest on programming, guidance, and current legal and business developments.