After the IEEPA Ruling: What Importers Must Do Right Now

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down one of the most consequential trade law decisions in decades. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Overnight, the legal foundation for the Administration’s entire IEEPA tariff regime — including the “reciprocal” tariffs, drug-trafficking tariffs, and related measures — was swept away.

The ruling created two urgent and simultaneous obligations for U.S. importers: pursue refunds of duties already paid under the now-invalid IEEPA authority, and navigate a replacement tariff regime that took effect just four days later.

The Refund Opportunity — and Why It Won’t Be Automatic

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not trigger automatic refunds. It establishes the legal predicate. The mechanism for actually recovering money is procedural, deadline-driven, and easy to forfeit through inaction.

For liquidated entries, the standard path is a CBP protest filed within 180 days of the liquidation notice date. The protest must be “distinct and specific” — it must identify the entry numbers, the liquidation date, the amount in dispute, and provide a legal basis tying the contested duties to the invalidated IEEPA tariff authority.

Entries have been liquidating on a rolling basis since late 2025. For many importers, the 180-day protest clock is already running — and some windows may be weeks away from closing. Assembling an entry universe and filing protests is not a “soon” task. It is an immediate one.

The Customs protest system was not designed for the volume of claims this ruling will generate. The stronger posture — particularly for importers with material exposure — is to file a lawsuit directly in the U.S. Court of International Trade in parallel with, or even instead of waiting on, the protest process.

Update — March 4, 2026: Judge Richard K. Eaton of the CIT issued a nationwide order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States confirming that all importers of record are entitled to the benefit of the Learning Resources decision. CBP must liquidate and reliquidate without IEEPA duties. Full analysis →

The Replacement Regime: Section 122

On the same day as the ruling, President Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a replacement 10% ad valorem import surcharge, effective February 24, 2026, with intent to raise it to the statutory ceiling of 15%.

Section 122 is narrower but more legally defensible than IEEPA. It explicitly authorizes surcharges “in the form of duties” — the precise language IEEPA lacked. It carries a hard 15% rate ceiling and a 150-day time limit, expiring July 24, 2026 unless Congress acts.

Key operational distinctions: the surcharge does not stack on Section 232 duties (steel, aluminum, automobiles). Canada and Mexico are excluded for USMCA-qualifying goods. Agricultural products, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, energy products, and certain electronics are also carved out.

What the Administration Does Next

Section 122 is a bridge, not a destination. USTR Greer has signaled accelerated new Section 301 investigations covering most major trading partners. Section 232 investigations are continuing. Both involve formal records and public comment processes, making early participation strategically important.

Importers that submit comments and evidence in these proceedings build standing for potential future litigation and create a record that may influence the scope and structure of any tariffs that result.

The Learning Resources decision is a significant limitation on executive tariff authority — but it is not the end of the tariff agenda. The Administration has moved quickly to preserve the policy direction through alternative statutory channels. For importers, the ruling creates a narrow and time-sensitive window to recover past overpayments while simultaneously requiring adaptation to a new surcharge structure. Both demand action now.