DOJ Seeks to Vacate IEEPA Refund Injunctions

Why Importers Who Haven’t Filed Suit Have the Most at Stake

On August 10, 2026, the Department of Justice filed its opening brief in the consolidated Federal Circuit appeal challenging the Court of International Trade’s universal injunctions governing IEEPA duty refunds. The government’s own brief concedes that those injunctions now matter to exactly one group: importers with finally liquidated entries who have not filed suit. If the Federal Circuit vacates, that group has no administrative path to a refund, because CBP has told the court it lacks statutory authority to reliquidate finally liquidated entries on its own initiative.

Key Takeaways

The government filed its opening brief on August 10, 2026 in Federal Circuit Nos. 2026-1895, -1897, and -1899, appealing the CIT’s April 17, 2026 universal injunctions entered by Judge Richard K. Eaton.

The government does not contest importer-specific reliquidation orders. It has stated it intends to comply with them and has not appealed the hundreds already entered.

By the government’s own framing, the universal injunctions retain force only as to IEEPA refunds on finally liquidated entries belonging to importers who have not sued.

CBP’s position is that Congress gave it no authority to reliquidate a finally liquidated entry absent a timely protest or reliquidation within 90 days of liquidation.

The practical takeaway is unchanged and now more urgent: a filed case, not the administrative refund process, is what protects a finally liquidated entry.

The Limits on IEEPA Refunds

The Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Refunds followed, but not uniformly. CBP built new functionality inside ACE, the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries system, to handle the volume. CAPE Phase 1 became available to importers and brokers on April 20, 2026, and covered entries that were unliquidated or no more than 80 days past their liquidation date. Additional functionality deployed on June 29, 2026 covering reconciliation-flagged entries for which no reconciliation entry was filed.

The government’s brief reports the scale. As of July 31, 2026, approximately $128.68 billion in potential and certified refunds had been accepted for processing in CAPE, of which roughly $100 billion had been certified and sent to Treasury for disbursement. CAPE had been used more than 252,000 times, covering more than 25 million entries, and 17.69 million entries had been liquidated or reliquidated without IEEPA duties. For comparison, CBP refunded roughly 338,000 entries in all of 2025.

What CAPE does not reach is the finally liquidated entry. Liquidation becomes final when no protest is filed within 180 days. CBP may reliquidate within 90 days of liquidation to correct errors under 19 U.S.C. § 1501, or following an approved protest under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1514 and 1515. The government’s brief states plainly that CBP has no statutory authority to reliquidate finally liquidated entries on its own accord.

The CIT’s response was the universal injunction. On April 17, 2026, Judge Eaton ordered CBP to liquidate all unliquidated IEEPA entries without regard to the IEEPA duties, and to reliquidate all liquidated entries, including those for which liquidation is final, for every importer of record rather than only the plaintiffs before him. He stayed the orders to the extent they required immediate compliance. Those orders are the subject of this appeal.

The Government’s Strategy on Appeal

The brief advances three independent grounds for vacatur.

First, Trump v. CASA. The government argues that the Supreme Court’s holding that federal courts lack equitable authority to issue universal injunctions applies to the CIT through 28 U.S.C. § 1585, which grants the CIT the powers in law and equity of a district court. The government notes that the Federal Circuit already vacated a CIT universal injunction on this basis in its 2025 V.O.S. Selections en banc decision. It rejects the CIT’s reasoning that the Customs Courts Act of 1980, national geographic jurisdiction, exclusive subject matter jurisdiction, and the constitutional uniformity requirement for duties combine to place the CIT outside CASA.

Second, party presentation. The government emphasizes that no plaintiff moved for universal relief, that the Atmus plaintiff had withdrawn its TRO motion before the injunction issued, and that the V.O.S. Selections plaintiffs expressly disclaimed any nationwide scope. It argues that entering extraordinary relief sua sponte and without adversarial briefing independently warrants vacatur.

Third, the equitable factors. The government argues the CIT never addressed Winter, that the named plaintiffs faced no irreparable harm because refunds were forthcoming either administratively or by party-specific order, and that compliance would divert CBP import and entry specialists from revenue protection and national security functions.

The Outcome That Matters to Importers

Read past the constitutional argument and the operative concession appears at page 19 of the brief. Because the CIT has now entered importer-specific reliquidation injunctions in hundreds of pending cases, reaching entries liquidated more than 80 days earlier, the universal injunctions have remaining force only as to finally liquidated entries of importers who have not brought suit. The government has not appealed those importer-specific orders and states it intends to comply with them.

That produces a clean division of risk:

If you filed suit. Your position is largely intact regardless of how the appeal comes out. The government is not challenging party-specific relief, and it does not contest entry of an importer-specific injunction on the same terms as those already issued.

If you did not file suit and your entries are finally liquidated. The universal injunction is the only thing standing between you and a permanent loss. If the Federal Circuit vacates, the government’s stated position is that CBP cannot fix your entries administratively and no court order covers you. Furthermore, it is unclear what the United States will do with respect to refunds issued under the CAPE system if the legal basis for the CAPE system is overturned. While not directly stated in the brief, CBP may try to recoup duties on the basis that they were paid without legal authority. As they were paid pursuant to an order which has been challenged, the refunds would not appear to be final.

Two variables remain open. A class certification motion is pending in V.O.S. Selections, and the CIT has withheld the importer-specific injunction in that case while it resolves the motion. Certification could create a path for absent importers that does not depend on the universal injunctions surviving. Such “absent importers” would, however, be subject to unspecified fees ordered under the class action. Separately, the injunctions remain stayed as to immediate compliance, so nothing changes operationally while the appeal is briefed.

What to Do Now

Pull an entry-level report and separate entries into three buckets: unliquidated, liquidated within 80 days, and finally liquidated.
Confirm CAPE submissions were accepted rather than merely filed. Acceptance and certification are different states, and validation failures have gone unnoticed.
For any finally liquidated entry, evaluate a Section 1581(i) filing on its own timeline rather than waiting for the appeal to resolve. The limitations clock does not pause for the Federal Circuit.
Reconcile Treasury disbursements against certified refund amounts. Certification by CBP is not receipt of funds.

Diaz Trade Law represents importers in IEEPA refund recovery, including Section 1581(i) filings, protest strategy, and CAPE submission review. Contact us at 305-456-3830 or info@diaztradelaw.com.