A company that never filed a lawsuit may still be owed millions in tariff refunds. That is the upshot of a March 5, 2026, ruling by the United States Court of International Trade, which held that “all importers of record” can claim money back after the Supreme Court struck down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The decision extends relief well beyond the small group of plaintiffs who originally challenged the duties. As of May 22, U.S. Customs and Border Protection had accepted refund applications totaling $85 billion, and the Trump administration plans to appeal.
What the universal refund order means for businesses that never sued
Before the March ruling, only companies that had actively gone to court stood to recover what they paid under the IEEPA tariffs. The CIT’s decision wiped out that distinction. By declaring that every importer of record qualifies, the judge moved the process from individual litigation to an administrative refund track run through CBP’s existing liquidation system. In practical terms, a mid-size auto parts manufacturer in Ohio or a small electronics distributor in Southern California can now file for recovery without hiring specialized trade counsel or joining a class action.
The immediate question is whether importers who stayed on the sidelines will now flood CBP with new claims. The $85 billion already on file as of late May largely reflects companies that were closely tracking the litigation and moved fast once the Supreme Court ruled. If the universal remedy survives the appeal, the volume of new filings from businesses that never participated in the original cases could grow sharply in the months ahead.
The ruling also changes how companies think about their own records. Importers that meticulously preserved entry documents, tariff classifications, and payment histories are positioned to substantiate large claims with relatively little friction. Those that wrote off the tariffs as a cost of doing business may now scramble to reconstruct paperwork, especially if they relied on customs brokers and never centralized their own files.
How a procedural order in late 2025 laid the groundwork
The court’s path to a blanket remedy started months earlier. On December 23, 2025, the CIT issued Administrative Order 25-02, creating a framework to stay new IEEPA tariff cases and place them behind a single lead action. That procedural move consolidated what had become a flood of separate lawsuits into one track, so the outcome in the lead case would carry practical weight across the entire docket.
By clustering similar disputes, the order cut duplicative briefing and ensured that core legal questions would be answered once rather than hundreds of times. It also telegraphed that the court expected a systemic resolution, not a patchwork of conflicting judgments. When the Supreme Court ultimately struck down the tariffs, the lead-case structure made it far more logical to apply the result to everyone who paid, not just the named plaintiffs.
The court’s language left little room for ambiguity: relief belongs to “all importers of record.” The government disagrees. According to the Associated Press, the administration plans to appeal, arguing that non-parties should not automatically benefit. That appeal will determine whether the $85 billion in pending claims, and any new ones filed in the meantime, actually result in refund checks or instead become leverage in a narrower settlement with the original plaintiffs.
Three unresolved questions that could reshape the outcome
The first is the appeal itself. If a higher court narrows the remedy to named plaintiffs, companies that never sued would need to file their own cases or risk forfeiting their claims entirely. Legal observers are watching the Court of International Trade’s public docket feed for new test cases or procedural orders that might preserve the rights of latecomers while the appeal plays out.
The second is how CBP handles claims during the appellate window. The agency could continue accepting and preliminarily reviewing refund requests while delaying final payment until the legal questions are settled. Or it could move ahead with liquidations, raising the possibility that some refunds might later be clawed back if the government wins on appeal. Either path carries administrative and political risk, particularly if refund totals climb well beyond the current $85 billion.
The third involves who actually qualifies. The ruling hinges on the term “importer of record,” and under federal court practice, terms like “party,” “standing,” and “judgment” carry specific legal meanings outlined in the judiciary’s own glossary. Companies that imported goods through related entities, foreign affiliates, or third-party logistics providers will need to map those definitions onto their corporate structures to determine who is legally entitled to file.
What importers should be doing right now
Trade attorneys are advising clients to prepare detailed entry summaries, confirm which entity appeared as importer of record on each transaction, and closely monitor both the appeal and any new guidance from CBP. The universal language of the CIT’s order offers a rare opening for broad relief, but until the appellate courts weigh in, every refund application remains contingent. Companies that move quickly, document thoroughly, and stay alert to procedural shifts will be best positioned to capture whatever share of the remedy survives the next round of litigation.
David M. Keller is a finance writer based in Columbus, Ohio, covering personal finance and consumer-focused economic topics. He earned his degree in journalism from Ohio University and began his career reporting on local business and economic trends for a regional media outlet. Since then, he has contributed to a variety of online publications, focusing on clear, practical coverage of topics such as cost of living, debt, and everyday financial decision-making.
