Tucker Act Claims: Recovering Unlawful Tariffs Through the Court of Federal Claims
The standard CBP protest pathway requires filing within 180 days of entry liquidation. For importers whose earliest IEEPA entries liquidated before August 2025, those protest windows closed before the Supreme Court even ruled. The Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491) provides an independent recovery pathway through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims with a six-year statute of limitations — ensuring that importers who paid the earliest and often largest IEEPA assessments are not left without a remedy.
- Six-year statute of limitations from date of payment (not liquidation)
- Independent of CBP protest deadline — available even when the 180-day window has closed
- Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction (nationwide, Washington D.C.-based)
- Recoverable: Principal duties + pre-judgment interest + post-judgment interest
- Cost: Contingency (20%) — no fee unless recovery succeeds
(from date of payment)
(for Feb 2025 payments)
with expired protest windows
The Problem: Importers Who Paid First Are Left Out
The Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 ruling in Learning Resources arrived too late for a substantial class of importers. Entries that liquidated on or before August 23, 2025 — more than six months before the ruling — already had 180-day protest deadlines that expired before importers even knew their duties were unlawful.
The result: importers who paid the earliest and largest IEEPA tariff assessments — including the February 2025 Canada, Mexico, and China duties and the April 2025 Liberation Day tariffs — face no refund through the CBP/CIT channel simply because the clocks ran out before the legal landscape clarified.
The government collected money it had no legal authority to collect. The Tucker Act ensures it cannot keep that money on a technicality.
What Is the Tucker Act?
The Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491) is the federal statute that waives sovereign immunity for money claims against the United States. It gives the U.S. Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over claims “founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department.”
The Tucker Act is not a new or novel remedy. It has been used for over a century to recover money the government collected without legal authority — from unlawful tax assessments to improperly applied fees to unauthorized takings of property.
For IEEPA tariff recovery, the Tucker Act works through the doctrine of unlawful exaction: when the government demands and collects money it has no right to collect, the payer is entitled to recover that money. The Supreme Court’s ruling that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs establishes that every dollar collected under IEEPA was collected “without right.”
Legal authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (six-year limitations period). Full text at govregs.com.
The Court of Federal Claims: Forum and Jurisdiction
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CoFC) is a specialized federal court in Washington, D.C. with nationwide jurisdiction over money claims against the United States. Key characteristics:
- Nationwide jurisdiction — any importer anywhere in the U.S. can file
- Money claims specialty — the CoFC exists precisely for situations where the government has taken money it shouldn’t have
- Article I judges — appointed by the President for 15-year terms
- Appeals go to the Federal Circuit — the same court that heard the IEEPA appeals
- Six-year statute of limitations — far longer than the 180-day CBP protest window
The Legal Theory: Unlawful Exaction
An unlawful exaction occurs when the government “merely demands and collects money which it has no right to collect from the plaintiff.” To establish the claim, an importer must show three elements:
- The government demanded and collected money. CBP demanded and collected IEEPA tariff payments as a condition of releasing imported merchandise. This is documented in entry summaries, broker billings, and ACH payment records.
- The government lacked legal authority. The Supreme Court held in Learning Resources that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. The government had no legal basis to impose or collect these duties.
- The importer is entitled to recover. Elementary principles of restitution require that money exacted without legal authority be returned. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against deprivation of property without due process provides the constitutional money-mandating hook.
Courts have applied the unlawful exaction doctrine in customs and tariff contexts. The Federal Circuit has recognized that when duties or tariffs are later invalidated, the government cannot lawfully retain those amounts.
Does the CIT’s Exclusive Jurisdiction Block Tucker Act Claims?
The government will argue that the CIT’s exclusive jurisdiction over customs matters (28 U.S.C. § 1581) prevents the Court of Federal Claims from hearing these claims. This argument fails for a critical reason:
The CIT’s exclusive jurisdiction cannot operate to deny any remedy to importers whose claims are legally valid. Where the specialized court cannot provide a remedy — because the procedural prerequisites (timely protest) are unavailable — the Tucker Act court fills the gap. Jurisdictional exclusivity cannot mean that the government gets to keep billions of dollars collected without legal authority simply because an administrative deadline expired before the law was clarified.
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. (2008) supports this analysis: Tucker Act claims are not barred by failure to file an administrative claim where the administrative remedy is inadequate or unavailable.
We acknowledge this jurisdictional argument involves litigation risk — the government will contest it. But the equitable and constitutional foundation is strong, and the Court of Federal Claims exists precisely for moments when the government has taken money it had no right to take and ordinary administrative channels cannot provide relief.
Government Defenses — and How We Counter Them
Who Can File a Tucker Act Claim
Ideal Plaintiffs
- Importer of record who paid IEEPA tariff duties between February 1, 2025 and August 23, 2025 (entries whose 180-day protest deadlines have now expired)
- Did not file a timely CBP protest or CIT action covering those entries
- Has documentation of payment — entry summaries, broker statements, ACE records, bank confirmations
- Duty exposure of sufficient magnitude to justify litigation (typically $50,000+)
Key Industries Affected
Companies that imported high volumes during the peak IEEPA period (April–August 2025) are the primary candidates — particularly importers of consumer goods, industrial inputs, auto parts, and electronic components from China, Canada, and Mexico, where IEEPA rates reached 25–49%.
What You Can Recover
| Damage Type | Recoverable? | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Principal (original IEEPA duties paid) | YES | The full amount of IEEPA tariff payments deposited with CBP. |
| Pre-judgment interest | YES | Interest at the federal rate, compounded annually, from date of payment to judgment. |
| Post-judgment interest | YES | Accrues from date of judgment until paid. |
| Attorney fees | Possible | May be available in certain circumstances (Equal Access to Justice Act). |
| Lost profits | Generally NO | Tucker Act illegal exaction claims typically recover the amount taken, not consequential damages. |
| Punitive damages | NO | Not available in Tucker Act claims against the United States. |
The Six-Year Statute of Limitations
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2501, Tucker Act claims must be filed within six years of the date the claim accrues. For IEEPA tariff claims, the accrual date is the date of payment — when the duties were deposited with CBP.
This means:
- IEEPA tariffs paid February 2025 → Tucker Act deadline approximately February 2031
- IEEPA tariffs paid April 2025 (Liberation Day) → deadline approximately April 2031
- IEEPA tariffs paid August 2025 → deadline approximately August 2031
Timeline: Intake to Judgment
| Phase | Timeframe | Activities |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Intake and Assessment | Weeks 1–2 | Identify qualifying entries, quantify exposure, confirm no CBP protest was filed, assemble documentation. |
| 2. Case Preparation and Filing | Weeks 3–8 | Draft complaint, file in Court of Federal Claims, serve the government. |
| 3. Motion Practice and Briefing | Months 2–6 | Government answer, jurisdictional motions, legal briefing on the unlawful exaction theory. |
| 4. Discovery and Trial Preparation | Months 6–12 | Exchange of entry records, payment proof, CBP data. Expert reports if needed. |
| 5. Trial and Judgment | Months 12–24+ | Trial (if not settled), court decision, implementation of refund. |
Total estimated timeline: 18–36 months. Settlement may shorten this significantly, particularly as CIT IEEPA cases set precedent on refund mechanics.
Comparative Analysis: CBP Protest vs. CIT vs. Tucker Act
| Factor | CBP Protest | CIT Litigation | Tucker Act (CoFC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deadline | 180 days from liquidation | 180 days from protest denial | 6 years from payment |
| Timeline | 3–6 months | 12–18 months | 18–36 months |
| Cost | Flat fee | Contingency (20%) | Contingency (20%) |
| Forum | CBP administrative | CIT (New York) | CoFC (Washington, D.C.) |
| Best for | Most importers — first step | Failed protests; large exposure | Expired CBP deadlines; early IEEPA entries |
| Prerequisite | Liquidated entry | Denied CBP protest | None — independent pathway |
Note: These pathways are not mutually exclusive for importers with entries in different time windows. You may pursue CBP protests for recent entries while filing Tucker Act claims for older entries whose protest deadlines have expired.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I file a Tucker Act claim if I already filed a CBP protest?
Yes — for different entries. If you have some entries covered by a timely CBP protest and others where the protest window has closed, you can pursue both pathways simultaneously. The Tucker Act claim covers the entries without a viable protest.
What if CBP is still considering my protest?
Continue with the CBP process for entries where you filed a timely protest. The Tucker Act claim is for entries where no protest was filed or where the protest deadline has expired. The two pathways address different entry cohorts.
Do I need to exhaust CBP remedies first?
No. The Tucker Act provides an independent cause of action. Unlike CIT litigation under § 1581(a), a Tucker Act claim does not require a prior CBP protest. This is precisely its value for entries where the protest window has closed.
What is my claim worth?
The recoverable amount is the total IEEPA duties paid on qualifying entries, plus pre-judgment interest at the federal rate from the date of payment. For importers with significant volumes during the peak IEEPA period (April–August 2025), claims can easily reach six or seven figures.
How is interest calculated?
Pre-judgment interest in the Court of Federal Claims accrues at the federal rate, compounded annually, from the date of payment to the date of judgment. Post-judgment interest accrues from the judgment date until paid. The specific rate is published by the Treasury.
Is there litigation risk?
Yes. The government will challenge CoFC jurisdiction, arguing that the CIT has exclusive authority over customs matters. We believe the jurisdictional argument is strong — particularly given the equitable dimension and Clintwood Elkhorn precedent — but this is contested legal territory. The contingency fee structure means you bear no cost unless the claim succeeds.
Why should I file now rather than wait?
Early filing establishes priority, preserves evidence, and creates settlement leverage. As CIT IEEPA cases set refund precedent, Tucker Act plaintiffs benefit from being in the queue. The government’s institutional tendency is to delay — early action counteracts that.
Downloadable Resources
Key Legal Authorities
Full text available at govregs.com.
- 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) — Tucker Act jurisdictional grant (Court of Federal Claims)
- 28 U.S.C. § 2501 — Six-year statute of limitations for Tucker Act claims
- U.S. Const. Amend. V — Due process (money-mandating source for unlawful exaction)
- U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1 — Congressional tariff power
- Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) — IEEPA does not authorize tariffs
- Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States, 77 F.3d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1996) — unlawful exaction doctrine
- United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (2008) — Tucker Act not barred by expired administrative deadlines
Get a Free Tucker Act Evaluation
If you paid IEEPA tariffs before August 2025 and did not file a CBP protest, you may have a viable Tucker Act claim. Initial consultations are available at no charge. Representation is available on a contingency basis — no fee unless recovery succeeds.