Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) filed a motion on May 29, 2026 that provides an important and increasingly explicit preview of how the DOJ views IEEPA tariff refunds. The motion, nominally about whether a CBP Commissioner must testify as ordered by the Court of International Trade (CIT), contains statements that signal:

core/paragraph

intent to appeal the CIT’s blanket order of refunds for all affected customers, if the CIT does not amend the blanket refund order in the ongoing IEEPA tariff refund litigation;

core/list-item

for liquidated entries with a suit on file with the CIT, CBP does not have authority to issue a refund without a customer specific court order; and

the DOJ’s position that without a customer specific lawsuit filed with the CIT, no refund pathway exists for liquidated entries.

core/list

At a high level, the filing reinforces that the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system will not result in a refund for all importers. Depending on the full extent of the DOJ’s appeal of the CIT’s blanket refund order, the status of CAPE could be in flux. Refund entitlement for many entries will depend on importer-specific litigation at the CIT, not a universal remedy.

The DOJ’s Motion is available <a href="https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/r0zJQd82VyFs/v0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

The DOJ Sees Three Categories of Refunds: One for Unliquidated Entries and Two for Liquidated Entries

core/heading

The DOJ divides impacted entries into three categories, with materially different refund pathways.

CBP retains administrative control over these entries and is already processing refunds in the CAPE system. If you have received refunds from CBP, it is likely for this type of entry. While the filing does not distinguish between types of unliquidated entries, it is important to note that phase one of CAPE is only able to process the simple unliquidated entries, that is, those entries that do not have any other unique identifiers about them. For example, phase one cannot process:

entries flagged for reconciliation, Entry Type 09 (Reconciliation Summary);

antidumping and countervailing duty entries pending liquidation where the U.S. Department of Commerce has issued liquidation instructions;

entries not filed in CBP’s online system, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), or without a liquidation status in ACE;

entries covered by an open drawback claim.

CBP has said that some of these entries may be covered in a “Phase Two” of the CAPE system, but the DOJ’s intent to appeal the CIT order makes that status uncertain.

2. Liquidated Entries with Pending, Importer-Specific, CIT Lawsuits

For entries that are finally liquidated and already subject to a CIT case, the government’s position is clear:

CBP has no authority to reliquidate or refund absent a court order.

Relief must occur through “importer-specific orders requiring reliquidation.”

This is a direct rejection of the notion that refunds will be administered broadly once the Court resolves overarching legal questions. Instead, each importer would be required to secure relief in its own case. It is unclear whether the DOJ’s position is that a CIT case is required importer-by-importer, or entry-by-entry. But it is clear that the DOJ does not consider itself to have authority to issue a refund without a court order that is specific to each importer.

3. Liquidated Entries Without Filed Lawsuits

The most consequential position in the filing concerns entries where no lawsuit has been filed:

The CIT has attempted to order “universal” reliquidation covering all similarly situated importers.

DOJ states this exceeds the Court’s jurisdiction and equitable authority and will be challenged on appeal.

The government intends to seek a stay of any relief as applied to non-party importers.

That means, if you have not filed a case seeking refunds at the CIT, the DOJ’s position is that no refund pathway exists for liquidated entries.

Filing suit at the CIT to preserve right-to-refund has always been the most cautious step importers can take to protect their rights. Now, the DOJ’s position is that a CIT lawsuit is required. Entry identification is critical. Importers must distinguish between:

As those categories are in flux, it is likely best practice to seek relief from the CIT for all refunds.

The “Wait and See” Carries Risk

The government’s position leaves little room for retroactive inclusion. If universal relief is vacated or stayed, non-party importers may be excluded entirely. Importers should expect continued fragmentation.

Rather than a single coordinated refund process, the landscape is evolving into limited categories plus parallel, importer-by-importer litigation.

The government’s filing confirms that the IEEPA refund process is not converging toward a unified solution. The central issue—whether the CIT can compel relief for non-party importers—will likely be resolved on appeal. Until then, importers with liquidated entries face a narrowing window to preserve potential claims.

For liquidated IEEPA entries, the government’s position is clear: no lawsuit, no refund.

For more information on tariff refunds or CIT litigation, please contact:

IEEPA Tariff Refund Questions: Orrie Walsvik, Jeff Dunn

Government Relations: Sarah Helton, Michael Best Strategies

Forklift lifting a shipping container between large stacks of multicolored containers at a port during sunset.

Stacked cargo containers in multiple colors at a shipping yard during sunset.

Jeffrey S. Dunn

Sarah C. Helton

Joseph L. Olson

Orrie A. Walsvik

Public Policy Law & Procurement

Trade

IEEPA Refund Litigation Update: Government takes “No Lawsuit, No Refund” Position for Certain Entries

Drafting Under Fire: Cases Shaping IP Licensing and Enforcement Rights

Five Real Estate Trends Organizations Need to Know Right Now

DC Judge Vacates IRS Limitation on Wind, Solar Tax Credits, But Uncertainty for Developers Remains

Lessons from the Tax Court: Contemporaneous Written Acknowledgments from Nonprofits to Donors – Strict Compliance Required, Substantial Compliance Not Enough.

IEEPA Refund Litigation Update: Government takes “No Lawsuit, No Refund” Position for Certain Entries

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

Drafting Under Fire: Cases Shaping IP Licensing and Enforcement Rights

Five Real Estate Trends Organizations Need to Know Right Now

DC Judge Vacates IRS Limitation on Wind, Solar Tax Credits, But Uncertainty for Developers Remains

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

Drafting Under Fire: Cases Shaping IP Licensing and Enforcement Rights

Five Real Estate Trends Organizations Need to Know Right Now

DC Judge Vacates IRS Limitation on Wind, Solar Tax Credits, But Uncertainty for Developers Remains

Slide Menu

Slide Search