There were two substantial developments in the tariffs landscape last week.
IEEPA Tariff Refund Litigation Update
Since the Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States (Court No. 25-00066), ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund all unlawfully collected IEEPA duties.
On April 17, 2026, the CIT entered an injunction directing tariff refunds and later expanded that relief through a universal injunction requiring CBP to reliquidate entries and issue refunds to all affected importers of record — including companies that had never filed their own lawsuits.
CBP has been processing approximately $85 billion in refunds through its newly developed Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system, representing over half the total IEEPA tariffs paid. However, most refunds processed to date have gone to large importers. The court has noted that CBP has not yet proposed a method for refunding all unlawfully collected duties, including those owed to small and mid-size importers.
On June 2, the government filed notices of appeal in both V.O.S. Selections and Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. (docketed at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) as Nos. 2026-1895 and 2026-1898). The government argues the universal injunction exceeds the CIT’s authority under Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025), and that CBP lacks authority to refund liquidated entries without individualized court orders — i.e., each importer must file its own case with the CIT.
Plaintiffs have responded by requesting a new permanent injunction requiring all IEEPA refunds to be processed through CAPE and filing a Motion for Class Certification on behalf of all importers whose claims are not currently CAPE-eligible. If granted, certification would resolve the CASA issue by placing a class action before the court.
The government’s appeal creates substantial uncertainty for companies that paid IEEPA tariffs but have not yet filed their own lawsuits at the CIT. The universal injunction currently provides a mechanism for those importers to obtain refunds on liquidated entries without pursuing individual litigation. If the Federal Circuit stays or reverses the universal injunction, importers who are not named plaintiffs may be forced to file individual lawsuits with the CIT.
USTR Proposes Section 301 Tariffs on 60 Economies Over Forced Labor
On June 2, 2026, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a determination under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 that the acts, policies and practices of 60 economies related to their failure to prohibit importation of goods produced with forced labor are “unreasonable” and a burden on U.S. commerce. Section 301 specifically targets persistent patterns of conduct permitting forced or compulsory labor. The USTR alleges that, of the 60 economies, 54 failed to impose and enforce a forced labor import prohibition, while 6 (Canada, Ecuador, the EU, Indonesia, Mexico and Pakistan) failed to effectively enforce existing prohibitions.
The USTR proposed two tariff tiers: a 10% additional duty for economies that have imposed or committed to a forced labor import ban (including Canada, the EU, Mexico, the UK, Taiwan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia and others); and a 12.5% additional duty for the remaining 46 economies (including Australia, Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Switzerland and Vietnam). Broad product exclusions apply under Annex A, including USMCA-compliant goods, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, articles subject to separate Section 232 tariffs and semiconductors.
At this point, the USTR’s determination does not have binding effect. The office is gathering public comments and there will still need to be hearings before adoption.
As always, Warner attorneys will continue to monitor these developments and provide updates. Please contact a member of our Supply Chain Industry Group if you would like to discuss these matters in further detail.
