State Lawsuit Tariff Relief: What U.S. Importers Must Know About IEEPA Refunds, Consumer Class Actions, and Business Risk

Sep 28

9 min read

By Jeb Singer, Managing Partner, Singer Law Group

Last Updated: June 2026

State attorneys general are challenging the federal government's IEEPA tariffs, and consumer class actions are being filed in federal courts across the country. For U.S. importers of record, those cases do not replace the steps required to protect an individual refund claim. Importers still need to track their own entries, liquidation dates, protest deadlines, and CAPE filings. The state lawsuit tariff relief litigation can affect the broader refund process, but it does not replace an importer's filing requirements. If an entry is approaching the 180-day protest deadline, waiting for another case to play out can put that refund claim at risk.

What the Supreme Court's IEEPA Ruling Means for Importers

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the

President authority to impose tariffs. The Court's decision turned on the limits of the authority Congress granted under IEEPA and Congress's constitutional power over taxes and duties. NPR reported on March 6, 2026, that the federal government had collected approximately $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs from more than 330,000 businesses. For importers, the ruling answered the underlying question about IEEPA tariff authority, but it did not eliminate the work of identifying entries, tracking deadlines, and pursuing refunds.

Three terms define what follows from that ruling. IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) is the federal statute the President used to impose the now-invalidated tariffs.

An importer of record is the party legally responsible for paying customs duties to CBP and, critically, the only party with a direct legal entitlement to refunds from the federal government. CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries) is the CBP system developed to process IEEPA duty refunds electronically without requiring individual lawsuits for qualifying entries.

The U.S. Court of International Trade followed the Supreme Court's ruling with a nationwide refund order directing CBP to repay all IEEPA duties with interest. The government has appealed that order to the Federal Circuit, arguing it violates Trump v. CASA's prohibition on universal injunctions. That appeal is pending. Its outcome will determine whether non-litigant importers receive automatic refunds or must have filed their own individual actions. The answer is not yet known. Your deadline, however, is already running.

What Does State-Level Litigation Actually Cover?

State lawsuits and consumer class actions challenge IEEPA tariffs from two different angles, neither of which substitutes for an importer's own CBP filings. Understanding the distinction

is the most important thing a CFO or operations director can do right now.

State attorneys general have challenged the federal government's IEEPA tariffs based on the financial impact on businesses and residents in their states. Those cases address the government's authority to impose the tariffs, but they don't cover the refund process for individual importers. An importer still must review its own entries, file any required protests, register eligible entries through CAPE, and track the 180-day protest deadline.

Consumer class actions raise a different issue for importers. According to Holland & Knight's June 2026 analysis, more than 80 proposed consumer class actions had been filed in more than 20 federal judicial districts across more than 20 states. These cases generally involve businesses that increased prices in response to IEEPA tariff costs and are also seeking refunds from the government. Some were filed before the businesses had received any refund. For importers and retailers, these cases create a separate litigation issue from recovering duties from the government.

The June 4, 2026 class certification motion filed by Terry Precision Cycling LLC in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump focuses on importers whose entries are not currently being handled through CAPE. If the court approves the proposed class, it could give those importers another way to pursue refunds without bringing separate lawsuits. That has not happened yet. Importers with entries outside CAPE should still review where those entries stand and what filing options are available.

The Three Mistakes Importers Make When They See Tariff Litigation in the News

Assuming a state AG lawsuit or class action protects their CBP deadlines. Importers still need to track the liquidation date for each entry and the applicable protest period under 19 U.S.C. § 1514. A separate lawsuit does not automatically preserve those deadlines. Waiting for another case to work its way through the courts can leave an importer with entries that are already outside the protest window.
Treating importer refund rights and customer tariff costs as the same issue. The importer of record is the party that paid duties to CBP and is in a different position from a retailer, distributor, or customer who absorbed higher prices further down the supply chain. Importers need to separate the duties paid to CBP from any pricing or pass-through issues involving their customers.
Waiting for the Federal Circuit appeal before reviewing their entries. The appeal does not stop importers from tracking their own liquidation dates and protest deadlines. Entries continue moving through the customs process while the appeal is pending. Importers should know which entries are still within the protest period and which ones need attention now.

What You Must Do Instead

The refund path for an importer of record runs through CBP, not through any state court or class action docket. The five-step sequence below is the operative framework.

Audit your customs entry records first. Pull every entry in which IEEPA duties were paid. Identify the entry number, the liquidation date, and the duty amount. This audit is the foundation of every subsequent step. Singer Tariff Recovery's ACE data customs entry review process extracts this data from CBP's Automated Commercial Environment portal. It maps it against liquidation status and protest eligibility in a single pass.

Check liquidation status and calculate your protest windows. Start with each entry's liquidation date. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, an importer generally has 180 days from liquidation to file a protest with CBP. That makes the liquidation date one of the first things to check when reviewing entries for a potential refund. Track the 180-day customs protest deadline entry by entry so you know which filings need attention first.

File protests for eligible entries that are still within the deadline. Once you know which liquidated entries are still within the 180-day period, determine which ones require a protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514. Filing on time protects the importer's ability to challenge CBP's decision through the administrative process and, where available, pursue further review in the Court of International Trade.

Register for CAPE and keep track of your refund status. CAPE lets CBP process qualifying IEEPA refunds electronically. Importers should identify eligible entries, complete the required CAPE steps, and continue checking the status of those entries as the refund process moves forward. Singer's CAPE refund tracking process helps importers track their entries and identify issues that need closer review.

File a protective lawsuit in the CIT for entries past the protest window. For entries more than 180 days past their liquidation date, a protective lawsuit under 19 U.S.C. § 1581(i) in the U.S. Court of International Trade is the mechanism to preserve refund eligibility while the Federal Circuit appeal is resolved. This is not optional for importers with significant older-entry exposure. The tariff refund litigation at the Court of International Trade requires coordination between customs counsel and CIT litigation strategy, a combination Singer Tariff Recovery handles through Singer Law Group's commercial litigation practice.

Does State Litigation Create a Dual-Sided Risk for Your Business?

The consumer class actions identified by Holland & Knight create a separate issue for importers already working through the refund process. A business that raised prices to cover IEEPA tariff costs could be pursuing a refund from the federal government while also facing customer claims over those same price increases. Those are two different legal issues, and importers need to understand how each one affects the business.

These two positions are not mutually exclusive. They are concurrent. Cases are being filed against businesses before those businesses have received any government refund. The legal theory is that a business cannot collect tariff costs from consumers and then recover the same costs from the government without accounting for the pass-through. That theory has not been tested to judgment in any circuit, and defendants have raised significant threshold defenses. But the litigation risk is real, active, and industry-agnostic. Shipping companies, retailers, manufacturers, consumer brands, and automobile manufacturers are all named in filed suits.

The critical point for importers is this: acting on your CBP deadlines does not increase your consumer class action exposure. The refund you are entitled to as an importer of record is a separate legal entitlement from the pricing decisions you made at the retail or wholesale level. Protecting that refund by filing timely protests and CAPE registrations is the correct move regardless of consumer litigation exposure. What the consumer litigation does affect is the separate question of how you document and communicate your pricing decisions from the tariff period, a question for litigation counsel, not customs counsel, but one that Singer Law Group's commercial litigation team is positioned to address alongside the refund recovery work.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a state lawsuit over IEEPA tariffs protect my right to a refund as an importer?

No. A state lawsuit challenging the IEEPA tariffs does not address an individual importer's CBP filing requirements. Importers still need to review the liquidation date for each entry and determine whether to file a protest within the 180-day period under 19 U.S.C. § 1514.

Waiting for a separate lawsuit to be resolved can leave some entries outside the protest period before the importer takes action.

What is the 180-day protest deadline and what happens if I miss it?

Under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, an importer generally has 180 days from liquidation to protest certain CBP decisions involving an entry. That makes the liquidation date one of the first things to check when reviewing a potential refund claim. Once the protest period passes, options can become much more limited. Importers with older entries should have those entries reviewed individually to determine what options, including possible Court of International Trade proceedings, are still available.

My company raised prices during the tariff period. Do I face consumer lawsuit risk even if I haven't received a refund yet?

Potentially. Holland & Knight reported in June 2026 that more than 80 proposed consumer class actions had already been filed against businesses in more than 20 federal judicial districts across more than 20 states. Some of those cases were filed before the businesses received a government refund. The claims generally involve businesses that passed tariff-related costs along to customers while also seeking refunds from the government.

Companies in that position should keep clear records showing how they made pricing decisions and consider consumer litigation separately from the customs refund process.

What is the CAPE system and does it cover all my entries?

CAPE, or Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries, is part of CBP's process for handling qualifying IEEPA duty refunds electronically. Importers should not assume that every entry will be handled through CAPE. The first step is to identify which entries qualify, which ones require a protest, and whether any entries need a different filing approach.

Review each group of entries based on its own liquidation and filing status.

What is the difference between the CIT class action certification motion and my own filing obligation?

The June 4, 2026 class certification motion in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump seeks class treatment for certain importers whose entries are not currently eligible for CAPE processing.

If the court grants the request, it could affect how those refund claims are handled. For now, however, the motion remains pending. Importers should continue reviewing their own entries and deadlines rather than assuming the proposed class will meet their individual filing requirements.

Can I wait for the Federal Circuit appeal to resolve before taking action?

Waiting can create problems for entries that are already approaching a protest deadline. The Federal Circuit appeal and an importer's individual CBP deadlines are separate issues. Importers can review their liquidation dates now, identify entries that are still within the protest period, and determine what needs to be filed while the appeal continues. That keeps the focus on the entries and deadlines the business can address today.

What Singer Tariff Recovery Does

Singer Tariff Recovery works with U.S. importers to identify which entries are involved, where those entries stand, and what needs to happen next. The work can include reviewing ACE data, preparing protests under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, registering eligible entries through CAPE, and determining whether to consider a Court of International Trade filing. When tariff refund issues overlap with a consumer class action, Singer Law Group can handle the litigation side while the customs refund work moves forward.

Jeb Singer, Managing Partner of Singer Law Group, began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Stuart M. Bernstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. His commercial litigation and restructuring background informs the firm's approach when tariff recovery issues overlap with litigation, business risk, or broader financial concerns.

Singer Tariff Recovery was co-founded by Jeb Singer, Managing Partner of Singer Law Group, Benjamin Weiss, and Pamela Gold.

Advance funding is available for qualifying importers who need to bridge the gap between filing and receiving a refund. To assess your refund eligibility and litigation exposure, book a consultation or call (917) 905-8280.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Importers should consult qualified trade counsel regarding their specific circumstances.