• Federal appeals court denies request to pause litigation over refunds of invalidated IEEPA tariffs, ordering over 2,000 importer lawsuits to proceed immediately in the U.S. Court of International Trade.
  • This follows the Supreme Court's February 20, 2026 decision that invalidated billions in tariff collections, with President Trump responding by terminating IEEPA tariffs and imposing new 10% tariffs under alternative authorities.
  • The ruling creates immediate refund opportunities for importers but sustains trade uncertainty as new tariffs take effect and the government reviews options.

A federal appeals court has denied the Trump administration's request to pause litigation over refunds of invalidated IEEPA tariffs, ordering more than 2,000 importer lawsuits to proceed immediately in the U.S. Court of International Trade. The decision, handed down around March 2, 2026, means refund cases will advance without delay, according to people familiar with the matter.

This latest development follows the U.S. Supreme Court's February 20, 2026, 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize presidential tariffs, invalidating an estimated $175-200 billion in collections. President Trump responded with executive orders on February 20 terminating IEEPA tariffs, suspending collections, and imposing new 10% tariffs on all countries under alternative authorities, effective February 24 for 150 days, with a signaled 15% increase.

"The court's rejection of a delay means these cases move forward now, even as the administration considers its options," said one legal expert who requested anonymity due to ongoing litigation. Efforts to reach the Department of Justice for comment were unsuccessful.

The appeals court's ruling applies the major questions doctrine, requiring clear congressional authorization for vast economic powers, and strikes IEEPA tariffs tied to various crises, including those related to fentanyl and Brazil elections. While new tariffs under Sections 122, 301, and 232 sustain pressure on imports, the immediate focus shifts to refund litigation in the CIT, where importers like Learning Resources, Inc., a toy importer in the lead Supreme Court case, are seeking reimbursement.

Market participants are watching closely as the decision affects global supply chains and bilateral trade deals, now rendered uncertain. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's dissent warned of billions in refunds even if costs were passed on to consumers, highlighting the commercial disruption at stake. In the short term, refund litigation is expected to surge in the CIT, with possible intervention from the administration or Congress, while new tariffs of 10-15% take effect immediately.

Longer-term, uncertainty looms over refund mechanics, substitute regimes, and trade agreements, with experts predicting further suits over issues like de minimis exemptions and policy pivots. The ruling leaves Section 301 and 232 duties intact, preserving key elements of Trump trade policies amid these shifts. As one industry analyst put it, "This isn't the end of protectionism—it's just a change in the legal battlefield."