U.S. Department of Justice files appellate brief regarding IEEPA refunds
Date of publication: August 18, 2026.
The U.S. government filed its opening appellate brief in a Federal Circuit case concerning refunds of tariffs that had been imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the Supreme Court later held were not authorized by IEEPA. The government is asking the Federal Circuit to vacate (overturn) what DOJ characterizes as "universal injunctions" - orders extending relief to non-party importers - issued by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The government argues that the CIT exceeded its authority by ordering refunds not only for the plaintiffs in the lawsuits, but effectively for all importers that paid the unlawful IEEPA tariffs.
Background
- The Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, making the tariffs unlawful.
- Following that ruling, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) created a refund process called CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries) to return tariff payments.
- According to the brief, CBP has already certified approximately $100 billion in refunds and processed millions of entries through the CAPE system.
1. Issued impermissible "universal" injunctions
The government's primary argument is that recent Supreme Court precedent (Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025)) prohibits federal courts from issuing nationwide or universal injunctions benefiting nonparties. The government contends that the CIT nevertheless ordered relief for all affected importers, not just those before the court.
2. Ignored the principle of party presentation
The brief claims Judge Eaton:
- Entered broad relief on his own initiative
- Granted remedies that plaintiffs had not requested
- In some cases, acted after motions had been withdrawn
- Did so without giving the government a meaningful chance to brief the issue.
3. Failed to analyze the normal injunction factors
The government argues the CIT never properly considered the following items, which are normally required before issuing an injunction:
- Irreparable harm
- Balance of equities
- Public interest
- Necessity of injunctive relief
Criticism of the CIT proceedings
The DOJ's brief sharply criticizes the CIT proceedings. Among other things, the DOJ alleges that the CIT's Chief Judge reassigned the IEEPA refund cases to Judge Eaton and contends that Judge Eaton's subsequent management of the matters effectively placed him in the role of overseeing CBP's broader refund effort. Other allegations include the CIT:
- Conducted multiple off-the-record conferences
- Required frequent status reports from CBP
- Ordered the CBP Commissioner to appear and answer the court's questions. The DOJ obtained a stay from the Federal Circuit, after which the CIT withdrew the appearance order and the DOJ withdrew its mandamus petition.
Government's position on refunds
Notably, the government is not arguing against issuing refunds. Instead, it states that:
- It does not dispute that IEEPA did not authorize the tariffs.
- It has developed CAPE to facilitate administrative refunds where that process remains legally available.
- It will comply with importer-specific court orders directing refunds for finally liquidated entries.
- It objects to court-ordered relief extending to nonparty importers.
- The CIT has entered importer-specific injunctions in hundreds of refund cases, and DOJ states that it has not appealed those injunctions.
Outcome requested by the DOJ
The government asks the Federal Circuit to:
- Hold that the CIT lacked authority to issue universal injunctions.
- Find that the CIT violated party-presentation principles.
- Conclude that the CIT failed to apply the required equitable factors.
- Vacate the universal injunctions.
Practical takeaway
The U.S. government's August 10, 2026 opening brief asks the Federal Circuit to vacate what it called the CIT's "universal injunctions" concerning refunds of unlawfully collected IEEPA tariffs. DOJ does not dispute that IEEPA did not authorize the tariffs or that eligible importers may receive refunds. Rather, it argues that the CIT lacked authority to order relief extending to nonparty importers, acted without party-requested motions or adequate briefing, and did not apply the ordinary equitable factors governing injunctions.
CBP developed the CAPE functionality within its ACE systems to process IEEPA refunds at scale. DOJ reports that about $100 billion in CAPE refunds had been certified and sent to Treasury for disbursement, and that refunds had been processed for nearly 18 million entries as of July 31, 2026.
This appeal concerns the permissible scope and administration of refund relief, rather than whether IEEPA authorized the tariffs. As of the date of this article, the Federal Circuit has not yet ruled on the government's arguments.
For more information on how ONESOURCE Global Trade solutions can assist your global trade needs, please contact your Account Manager or Customer Success Manager.