Overview
While recent court rulings have provided some clarity regarding the government’s authority over tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), significant uncertainty remains for companies seeking to recover amounts paid — whether to the importer of record or to other entities within the supply chain. To assess their recovery options, companies must systematically map potential sources of reimbursement and evaluate the extent to which their existing documentation can support those claims.
What Have the Courts Determined?
On Feb. 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the president lacks authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA.[1] The ruling has sweeping implications: Since their inception, the government collected more than $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs from over 330,000 importers.[2] On March 4, 2026, Judge Eaton of the Court of International Trade held that “the duties were unlawful from the moment they were imposed, and that means every single cent of IEEPA duties that were imposed must be returned to the importer.”[3] He amended his order on March 5, writing:
“[W]ith respect to any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to the IEEPA duties imposed by the Executive Orders considered by the Supreme Court in Learning Resources[], U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CPB] 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 those duties.”
Although the refund process will be complex, government officials have outlined a potential path forward. Brandon Lord, executive director of Customs and Boarder Protection’s (CBP’s) Trade Programs Directorate, indicated that CBP requires 45 days to update its systems so importers can file revised declarations identifying entries subject to IEEPA duties.[4] CBP has also stated in prior court filings that refunds will be issued with post‑judgment interest.
While these rulings clarify the outlook for importers of record, whether — and how — those refunds will be shared with other companies involved in the import process remains far less certain.
How Does This Effect Corporations?
When the IEEPA tariffs were announced, companies adopted different approaches. Some absorbed the increased import costs to avoid losing customers. Others passed the costs through as a separately identified line item on invoices. Still others increased prices — sometimes without explicitly attributing the increase to tariffs. These differing approaches now complicate the question of whether — and to what extent — importers are obligated to pass tariff refunds back to customers. Companies must closely examine their contracts and commercial practices: What provisions address tariffs, surcharges, or similar costs? How were the charges described on invoices? What public statements were made regarding pricing or tariff impacts?
Legal exposure has already begun to emerge. Although Federal Express has stated it intends to reimburse customers for tariff-related assessments once refunds are received from the government, it nonetheless faces a putative class action — Reiser v. Federal Express, No. 26‑cv‑21328 (S.D. Fla.) — focused on these issues. Exposure is not limited to companies that specifically enumerated tariff surcharges. In Ward v. EssilorLuxottica, No. 26‑cv‑01133 (E.D.N.Y.), customers seek refunds from the eyeglass manufacturer based on statements made during an earnings call regarding price adjustments to manage import costs.
There is also potential exposure under consumer protection laws. If a company publicly stated that tariff costs were passed on to consumers, but later retains refunded duties, regulators may question whether those practices were deceptive or unfair. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general are likely attentive to these issues — particularly given that many states previously challenged the validity of the IEEPA tariffs.
What Should Companies Do Now?
Corporations should begin by conducting a comprehensive, cross‑functional assessment of their exposure to IEEPA tariff refunds. This includes identifying where tariff costs were realized across the supply chain, reviewing contractual provisions addressing tariffs, surcharges, or price adjustments, and analyzing how tariff impacts were reflected in invoices, pricing decisions, and public statements. Companies should also map potential recovery paths — whether through refunds received as importer of record or through claims against counterparties — and evaluate whether existing documentation is sufficient to support their expected positions.
At the same time, corporations must proactively manage litigation and regulatory risk. As refund expectations crystallize, customers, counterparties, and regulators may scrutinize whether refunded duties were retained or passed through, particularly where prior statements suggested costs were borne by consumers. Legal, compliance, finance, and communications teams should align on strategies, ensure consistency in external messaging, and prepare for potential claims under contract, consumer protection, or unfair trade practices theories. Early, deliberate action will be critical to maximizing recovery while minimizing legal and reputational exposure.
How Can Ankura Help?
Few companies have direct itemized billing for individual tariffs and can easily reverse these charges. Refunding IEEPA tariffs will require careful diligence, whether the refund goes to the importer or the customer. Ankura has the expertise to assist companies as they navigate this process. From calculating refund amounts to administering a claims or refund process, our experts have the efficiency and scale to assist you.
References
[1] It is important to note that not all of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration have been invalidated. Tariffs imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 are not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision and remain in effect. Companies may still have experienced increased tariff costs while receiving an IEEPA refund.
[2] Decl. of Lord, Para 12, Atmus v. Customs and Border Protection in the Court of International Trade, Case No. 26-cv-01259, 3/6/2026.
[3] Court Transcript, Atmus v. Customs and Border Protection in the Court of International Trade, Case No. 26-cv-01259, 3/4/2026.
[4] Ibid. Decl. of Lord, Para 29.
© Copyright 2026. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of Ankura Consulting Group, LLC., its management, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, or its other professionals. Ankura is not a law firm and cannot provide legal advice.
