As we noted in our previous articles, on February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that President Donald Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. This brought down the legal basis for the entire package of tariffs introduced under the IEEPA framework. Although this opened the door to refunds, one highly important question remained immediately after the decision: how quickly the matter would move, as a procedural matter, into the stage where a concrete mechanism for returning the amounts paid would begin to take shape.
It is precisely at this point that another significant development has now occurred. On March 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to delay further proceedings and ordered that the mandate issue forthwith. From a legal perspective, this is not merely a technical procedural detail. It is the step by which the dispute moves from the level of a major constitutional and statutory controversy to the practical implementation of the consequences of a decision that has already been handed down.
The dispute has shifted from the lawfulness of the tariffs to the question of further procedural steps
At this stage, the courts were no longer considering whether the IEEPA tariffs were lawful. The U.S. Supreme Court had already resolved that issue in February. The question had become a different one: whether further proceedings should still be slowed down and whether the administration should be granted additional time during which nothing materially significant would move forward from a procedural perspective.
The appellate court declined to allow such a course. In doing so, it made clear that the invalidation of the legal basis for the IEEPA tariffs is not to be followed by a period of indefinite delay. The dispute is to move forward, and the competent trade court is to be given the opportunity to address what follows in relation to tariffs that have already been paid.
The significance of the decision
Public discussion to date has naturally focused primarily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s February decision itself. That decision was undoubtedly pivotal, as it established that the tariffs imposed under IEEPA lacked a lawful basis. In practice, however, what comes next is often just as important. Between a favorable judgment and actual relief, there is frequently a procedural phase in which the scope, form, and manner of implementation are addressed.
That is precisely the phase into which the matter is now entering. The appellate court’s current decision does not mean that money will be automatically and immediately returned to all affected parties. It does mean, however, that there is no longer room for artificial delay and that the matter is to move toward a practical resolution of the refund question.
The Court of International Trade is becoming the focal point of further developments
Once the mandate is issued, attention shifts to the U.S. Court of International Trade, the court that will address the next procedural steps and may play a decisive role in shaping the refund mechanism itself. It is here that decisions will be made as to how unlawfully collected IEEPA tariffs are to be dealt with, what steps the government will be required to take, and what procedural standing individual importers will have.
From a business perspective, this is a critical moment. After months of legal uncertainty, the dispute is, for the first time, moving into a stage in which the issue will no longer be limited to general legal conclusions, but will concern the concrete procedural framework for future relief. For affected companies, this means that it is no longer sufficient merely to follow headlines reporting that the tariffs have been struck down. What will matter is understanding how that result translates into a real-world course of action in relation to specific imports and specific payments.
Early preparation is essential
This procedural development also has immediate practical significance for businesses that paid tariffs under the IEEPA regime during the relevant period. It is no longer possible to assume that the refund issue will remain unresolved for an extended period without further procedural movement, or that it will be resolved without an active approach on the part of affected parties. On the contrary, the dispute is moving into a stage in which the degree of factual, documentary, and procedural preparedness of the parties involved will become increasingly important.
In practical terms, this means that all relevant imports must be identified with precision, customs and payment records must be reconciled, the party that acted as importer or declarant in each transaction must be verified, and an assessment must be made as to whether the tariff burden was subsequently passed on to another party in the supply chain. At this stage, what will prove decisive is which parties are able to support their claims with a properly mapped factual record, complete documentation, and a timely, well-prepared procedural strategy.
A procedural milestone with direct implications
In disputes of this kind, a merits decision holding that a particular measure was unlawful will generally not, by itself, be sufficient. Equally decisive is the manner in which, and the timeframe within which, that legal conclusion is translated into enforceable and practically realizable consequences. That is precisely why the March 2, 2026 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals is of particular importance. It did not involve a further interpretation of a substantive legal issue; rather, it removed a procedural obstacle that could have delayed the continuation of the proceedings and, with it, the actual resolution of refund claims.
For affected importers, this is therefore a significant signal. The dispute over the IEEPA tariffs does not end with a finding that they were unlawful; it is entering a stage in which the specific procedural conditions, scope, and practical implementation of remedial measures will be determined. At this point, the ability of individual parties to substantiate their claims on the basis of complete documentation and a carefully chosen procedural strategy becomes critically important.
Conclusion
The March 2, 2026 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals represents an important procedural development in the broader agenda of IEEPA tariff refunds. The Trump administration failed in its attempt to hold back further proceedings, and the matter is now moving, without further delay, into the implementation phase before the Court of International Trade. For businesses affected by these tariffs, this means that further developments will depend above all on the timely identification of relevant imports, careful work with customs and payment records, and a properly structured procedural strategy.
Our law firm has long specialized in customs and tax law, and we continue to monitor this matter closely in cooperation with foreign partners. We can assist clients with the legal assessment of potential refund claims, support in identifying affected imports, preparation of the relevant documentation, and coordination of the next steps with foreign counsel and the competent authorities.
