The U.S. Government withdrew its petition for a writ of mandamus at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). On June 9, 2026, the Federal Circuit granted the Government’s request to withdraw the petition and dismissed the mandamus proceeding in In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-144, before Senior Judge Richard K. Eaton.
As previously reported, the DOJ appealed the CIT’s April 17, 2026, order issuing a universal injunction directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to refund IEEPA duties. In addition to that merits appeal, DOJ had filed a separate mandamus petition seeking Federal Circuit intervention to prevent CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott from being compelled to testify at the CIT regarding CBP’s anticipated timing for complying with refunds. Following the Federal Circuit’s involvement (including a stay of Judge Eaton’s order compelling Commissioner Scott’s testimony), on June 5, 2026, the CIT amended its order to permit substitute testimony from senior CBP officials. Judge Eaton allowed DOJ to present testimony from either Susan Thomas, CBP’s Executive Assistant Commissioner for Trade, or Brandon Lord, CBP’s Executive Director of the Trade Programs Directorate. Susan Thomas testified at the June 9th hearing in place of Commissioner Scott.
The Practical Significance of the Withdrawal
The Federal Circuit’s dismissal of the mandamus petition removes an immediate procedural fight over Commissioner Scott’s testimony. However, it does not resolve the underlying dispute over refunds, because the Government’s substantive appeal of the CIT’s April 17 universal refund injunction remains pending.
Although framed as a dispute about compelled testimony, the mandamus petition also teed up broader arguments about whether the CIT has authority to order relief extending beyond the parties before the court—an issue that remains central to the Government’s merits appeal.
Central to the IEEPA dispute is the CIT’s April 17, 2026, injunction which ordered CBP to refund IEEPA duties paid on three categories of entries: (1) unliquidated entries; (2) liquidated entries for which liquidation is not final; and (3) finally liquidated entries (entries more than 90 days past liquidation). The CIT initially suspended immediate application of that injunction but later lifted the suspension.
As part of its broader position in these proceedings, DOJ has continued to distinguish among: (1) unliquidated or nonfinal entries; (2) finally liquidated entries for importers that have filed CIT cases; and (3) finally liquidated entries for importers that have not filed CIT cases. For category (1) entries, CBP has begun processing refunds through Phase 1 of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (“CAPE”). DOJ’s position remains that CBP cannot reliquidate and refund finally liquidated entries. At the hearing held at the CIT on June 9, 2026, the Government continued to raise the argument that it does not have the authority to reliquidated finally liquidated entries unless importers file individual complaints at the CIT.
What’s Next
The Federal Circuit appeal concerning the CIT’s universal injunction and the scope of relief available for finally liquidated entries continues. Importers, particularly those with finally liquidated entries, should monitor developments closely as the appellate process moves forward and as CBP continues CAPE-related refund implementation for unliquidated/nonfinal entries. As of now only CAPE Phase 1 is ready and live. At the June 9th hearing for In re United States, CBP specified that additional progress has been made on CAPE Phase 2 addressing reconciliation entries, which will launch on June 29, 2026. CBP also indicated that programming for CAPE Phase 3 is expected to be ready in late July and that for Phase 3, CBP will require the importer of record numbers to ensure that the refunds are issued to the correct importers.
The Husch Blackwell International Trade and Supply Chain team will continue to monitor and provide updates on this case as they become available. If you have company-specific questions or concerns, please contact your Husch Blackwell attorney.