Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

CIT Universal Injunction Power Challenged in IEEPA Refund Appeal

By Cortney Morgan & Dimitri Zografi on October 9, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Gavel on cargo containers. Represents legal compliance in international trade. Symbolizes justice, law, and regulations in the import/export industry. Shows trade agreements.

On October 5, 2026, a group of importers led by V.O.S. Selections filed a brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit urging the Court to uphold the Court of International Trade’s (“CIT”) universal injunction directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to refund duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) to all affected importers. The government, appealing the CIT’s nationwide order, has argued that the CIT is barred from issuing universal injunctions after the Supreme Court’s Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025) decision and contended that CBP cannot reliquidate finally liquidated entries to issue refunds without importer-specific court orders, relying in part on a narrower view of CBP’s reliquidation authority under 19 U.S.C. § 1501.

The importers argued that CBP has broader authority to reliquidate and refund unlawfully collected duties than the government claims, pointing to 19 U.S.C. § 1520(a), which permits refunds when liquidation or reliquidation shows more duties were paid than required by law. The importers contended that  CBP wrongly relied on 19 U.S.C. § 1501 and that nothing in the statutory text requires a court order for reliquidation of entries more than 80 days past liquidation when the purpose is to return IEEPA duties.

On the scope of relief, the importers argued the CIT’s exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over tariffs under 28 U.S.C. § 1581 supports nationwide remedies to ensure uniform tariff treatment across the country. The importers emphasized that, beyond the general grant of district-court-like powers in 28 U.S.C. § 1585, Congress separately authorized the CIT in 28 U.S.C. § 2643(c)(1) to order any appropriate relief, including injunctions, which they described as a distinct and broader remedial grant. They argued CASA focused on district court authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 and does not limit the CIT and added that even under CASA’s “complete relief” framework, broad refunds are necessary because tariff costs were passed through the supply chain and affected prices paid throughout the market.

The case will now be reviewed by the Federal Circuit with a decision forthcoming.

The Husch Blackwell International Trade and Supply Chain team will continue to monitor this and provide updates as they become available.  If you have any questions or concerns, please contact your Husch Blackwell attorney.

Tags: Trump Tariffs
Photo of Cortney Morgan Cortney Morgan

An experienced attorney in the area of international trade and supply chain issues, Cortney advises foreign and domestic clients on all aspects of international trade regulation, planning and compliance, including import (customs), export controls, economic sanctions, embargoes, international trade agreements and preference programs.

Read more about Cortney MorganEmailCortney's Linkedin Profile
Photo of Dimitri Zografi Dimitri Zografi

Dimitri assists clients with international trade and tax matters. His practice centers on Customs compliance, trade remedies, and sophisticated cross-border regulatory strategy. He counsels U.S. and foreign clients on a wide range of complex trade issues, including antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, Section

…

Dimitri assists clients with international trade and tax matters. His practice centers on Customs compliance, trade remedies, and sophisticated cross-border regulatory strategy. He counsels U.S. and foreign clients on a wide range of complex trade issues, including antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, Section 301 and 232 tariffs, IEEPA compliance, country-of-origin determinations, scope rulings, and Customs enforcement proceedings.

Read more about Dimitri ZografiEmailDimitri's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Antitrust, Competition and Trade
  • Blog:
    International Trade Insights
  • Organization:
    Husch Blackwell LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo