Thousands of U.S. importers that paid tariffs later struck down by the Supreme Court are now caught between two conflicting government positions. The Treasury Department directed roughly $20.6 billion in refunds after the court invalidated tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But the Justice Department has told a federal court that some importers will need to file individual lawsuits and obtain importer-specific orders before they can collect what they are owed, even as the government simultaneously rolls out new electronic systems that add enrollment steps to the refund process.
A $20.6 billion refund pool with uneven access
The tension is straightforward: money has been set aside, but not everyone can reach it the same way. Justice Department filings state the government directed Treasury to issue about $20.6 billion in refunds, yet the same filings argue that technical limitations and the need for court orders tied to individual importers prevent blanket disbursement. That creates a two-track system. Large importers with legal teams and established customs infrastructure can pursue their refunds through litigation or existing electronic channels. Smaller firms, many of which lack dedicated customs brokers, face a different reality.
The practical barrier sits inside Customs and Border Protection’s own systems. Since February 6, 2026, the agency has required any payee with an ACE Portal account to complete an ACH refund authorization before receiving electronic payments. Importers who have not taken that step, or who never set up an ACE account in the first place, cannot receive funds through the standard pipeline. CBP then deployed its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries system for IEEPA refunds on April 20, 2026, adding another enrollment layer. Each of these steps requires time, technical knowledge, and in many cases professional help that smaller businesses may not have on hand.
DOJ’s legal argument and CBP’s system requirements
The DOJ’s position rests on a claim that the government cannot simply write checks to every affected importer without individual court orders. According to filings reported by The Washington Post, the department argues it needs importer-specific orders in individual lawsuits along with technical upgrades to process the remaining refunds. That stance effectively shifts the burden onto importers themselves, requiring them to initiate or join litigation to unlock money the Supreme Court has already said they should not have been charged.
On the administrative side, CBP’s CSMS messages tied to the Supreme Court’s IEEPA ruling outline a sequence of steps importers must complete. The CAPE system, which went live in April, centralizes refund processing but requires active enrollment. Importers need a functioning ACE Portal account, completed ACH authorization, and compliance with the new CAPE workflow. For companies that import goods regularly and maintain full-time trade compliance staff, these are routine tasks. For a small retailer or manufacturer that imported a handful of shipments during the tariff period, the process can be unfamiliar and time-consuming.
No public data yet shows how many importers have successfully navigated this maze or how much of the $20.6 billion has actually been disbursed. Trade lawyers say the uncertainty is pushing some businesses to file protective lawsuits in the Court of International Trade, not because they want to litigate the legality of the tariffs again, but because they fear being left out of the refund process if they do nothing. Others are waiting for clearer guidance from CBP, watching court dockets and agency bulletins for signs that the government might adopt a broader, more automatic approach.
Small importers at a disadvantage
The emerging gap is not only about legal strategy but also about basic capacity. Large multinational companies typically maintain in-house customs teams or retain outside counsel who can track CSMS notices, interpret technical instructions, and coordinate with brokers to update ACE and CAPE settings. Smaller importers may rely on part-time bookkeepers or generalist attorneys who are unfamiliar with customs procedures. For them, even understanding that a new authorization form is required can be a hurdle, let alone meeting litigation deadlines in a specialized federal court.
Some customs brokers and trade associations have begun circulating checklists and webinars to help clients prepare. They advise importers to confirm that their ACE Portal credentials are current, verify that bank information matches the new ACH refund requirements, and keep copies of entry summaries and payment records in case they need to join a lawsuit. But these efforts are uneven, and many of the smallest firms that paid the now-invalidated tariffs may not be plugged into such networks at all.
Pressure for a more uniform solution
The Justice Department’s insistence on importer-specific court orders reflects a cautious reading of procedural rules and the limits of existing technology. Yet it also raises broader policy questions about fairness and administrative burden. If only those who sue or who master CBP’s digital infrastructure receive timely refunds, the outcome will mirror the very inequities that emergency tariff powers were criticized for creating in the first place.
CBP’s public-facing site at cbp.gov emphasizes modernization and automation of trade processing, and the agency has framed CAPE and related tools as part of that effort. Whether those systems can be adapted to deliver more automatic refunds without a wave of new lawsuits is now a central concern for importers, their lawyers, and members of Congress who have begun to field complaints from constituents still waiting for money they believe is already theirs.
For now, the refund pool exists largely on paper: a set of Treasury directives, court filings, and technical instructions that promise relief but deliver it unevenly. Until the Justice Department and CBP align their legal and administrative approaches, thousands of importers will remain in limbo, watching a multibillion-dollar fund from the sidelines and wondering what, exactly, they must do to claim their share.
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
