On Wednesday, March 4, 2026, Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate or reliquidate all entries on which IEEPA tariffs were deposited, with a refund of those tariffs, plus interest, to all importers who paid the duties. A copy of the Court’s decision in Atmus Filtration, Inc v. United States is attached.

Bottom Line.

• The CIT has placed the refund process and all current IEEPA lawsuits in the hands of a single judge who held strongly that anyone who paid IEEPA tariffs should have them refunded;
• Judge Eaton will be intolerant of any attempt by the Administration to “slow-walk” or impede the refund process (an attitude shared by the Federal Circuit when it expedited the issuance of its mandate to the CIT earlier this week);
• Judge Eaton is unlikely to require litigants to exhaust the protest remedy as to IEEPA tariffs.
• Judge Eaton’s Order will almost certainly be appealed by the government, and there is a significant risk of reversal under the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA (holding that injunctions should only be entered to the benefit of litigants appearing before the court and not more broadly). This could frustrate the CIT’s obvious desire to provide direct relief for the Constitutional injuries suffered by all who paid IEEPA duties.

The Eaton Order in Atmus Filtration Triggers the “Nationwide Injunction” Question.

The Federal Circuit order remanding the V.O.S. Selections test case, which was combined with the Learning Resources case and decided by the Supreme Court directed the CIT, a court of national jurisdiction, to decide whether it had the power to issue a nationwide injunction.[1] Judge Eaton’s Order of March 4, 2026, indicated that because the CIT is a court of national jurisdiction, with “exclusive” jurisdiction over its subject matter, it had the power to issue a national injunction. And Judge Eaton exercised that power in holding that all importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court’s Learning Resources v. Trump decision:

ORDERED that, with respect to any and all unliquidated entries that were entered subject to the IEEPA duties, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 IEEPA duties.

Thus, Judge Eaton did not simply order relief for the parties who had brought “cases and controversies” to the CIT, he also ordered refunds for parties which have not yet sued. This decision will certainly be appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Recently, in Trump v. CASA (2025), the Supreme Court limited the power of Federal District Courts to issue “nationwide injunctions.” It held that, in most cases, a District Court should only issue injunctions which are sufficiently broad to protect the interests of the plaintiffs before it. The CASA Court granted “[t]he Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.” (Emphasis added).

Thus, Judge Eaton’s order does not end the IEEPA tariff controversy, but opens up a new front in its resolution. And it begets a lot of questions for importers awaiting IEEPA refunds through existing CIT lawsuits, and for those who are considering it. We expect to learn more at Friday’s conference as Judge Eaton explicitly ordered CBP to appear and answer questions about the refund process.

Companies Should Still File § 1581(i) Actions and Monitor Protest Deadlines.

There is a two-year statute of limitations for bringing an action to the CIT using its 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) residual jurisdiction, and for most importers, less than a year remains before filing such a suit will be time-barred. Once the Court sets up a judicial refund mechanism, getting a refund from the Court is likely to be a quicker and surer than waiting for the “nationwide injunction” controversy to be fought through the appellate courts. And, as noted above, our judgment is that Judge Eaton may have overstepped the bounds of Trump v. CASA by ordering Customs to provide relief to non-litigants.

[1] The original intent was to have the CIT decide if it could issue a nationwide injunction stopping enforcement of President Trump’s IEEPA Executive Orders, but the President revoked those on February 20, 2026, directing CBP to cease collecting IEEPA duties (and instead collect 10% duties under Section 122).

Although Judge Eaton’s decision indicates CBP must provide IEEPA duty refunds too all who paid, our judgment is that a CIT action is still required in light of the risks presented by the Supreme Court’s CASA decision. At the hearing before Judge Eaton, the government maintained that CBP lacks discretion to decide protests[1]; and therefore, protests remain a backup, protective action to be taken by those who did not file a CIT action before February 20, and even then, only when the deadline to protest is imminent.[2]

It remains to be seen whether the CIT’s appellate courts will hold that the IEEPA tariffs are “protestable” or “non-protestable” after the Supreme Court has ruled. If the IEEPA tariffs are protestable, the failure to file a timely protest within 180 days of liquidation may be a bar to recovery. If the IEEPA tariffs are not protestable and the importer did not file a 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) “residual jurisdiction” case counting solely on a refund through protests while that issue is litigated, the two-year period for filing a 1581(i) action could pass by precluding refunds. Until the appellate court speaks, and if you did not file a § 1581(i) action before the Supreme Court’s February 20 IEEPA decision, protect your refunds and do both.

We expect to learn more in short order following Friday’s hearing in Atmus Filtration and will be sure to provide you with an update of our analysis and recommendation at that time.

Please contact a Neville Peterson professional if you have any questions regarding IEEPA or refund procedures.

[1] To date, Customs’ position is that the assessment of IEEPA tariffs was a “ministerial” duty that involved no protestable “Customs decision”, and that they would deny any IEEPA protests as “non-protestable.” This remained CBP’s position as represented by DOJ counsel at the March 3 Atmus Filtration hearing. If an importer’s protest is denied, the importer will have only 180 days to challenge the protest denial in the CIT – finding itself in Court anyway. And refunds of IEEPA taxes to protest litigants would probably be delayed while the “protestability” jurisdictional issue is litigated.

[2] Normally, an importer is required to file a protest with Customs and protest its denial before coming to the CIT to seek a refund of duties. However, the Court can waive exhaustion of this administrative remedy “where appropriate.” The CIT has waived exhaustion of the protest remedy where it would be “futile or inappropriate.” Protests were clearly futile while the IEEPA Executive Orders were in place. Our judgment is that requiring potentially 300,000 importers to file protests in light of the Supreme Court decision, if not objectively “futile” is certainly logistically “manifestly inadequate.”