Federal Circuit Mandates Court of International Trade Take Action on Tariff Case
Federal Circuit Mandates Court of International Trade Take Action on Tariff Case
By John H. Kester
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump on Monday issued a mandate returning the case to the Court of International Trade to take further action. The order denied a court filing made by the government on Friday, February 27, in which it argued that Court should not mandate that the CIT take such action, and in the alternative, that no such mandate be issued for four months.
The government had argued that the extended time period would “allow the political branches an opportunity to consider options,” suggesting Congressional action to usurp or supplement the judiciary’s role with regard to refunds. Its filing responded to a Motion by plaintiffs that had moved that the mandate be issued immediately, and which the government characterized as “ill-conceived.” The government further stated that plaintiffs had an “apparent desire to be the center of attention,” “a…bare desire to be paid immediately,” and that the hundreds of importers who have filed related claims for refund before the CIT were not reason to immediately issue the mandate. It stated also that “the IEEPA tariffs have been replaced by vigorous new tariffs.”
Plaintiffs had argued that the mandate would “facilitate the prompt and equitable disposition of both this case and the over 900 other suits challenging the tariffs that are currently pending before the CIT.” It emphasized that the government previously stipulated in the matter that it would issue refunds, with interest, provided SCOTUS ruled the tariffs unlawful, and that it had stated refunds also would be available to other aggrieved plaintiffs, outside the case.
“Plaintiffs’ entitlement to refunds is clear and… every day they are forced to operate without them inflicts harm on their businesses,” the Motion read. The Court appears to have agreed.
Brief Judicial History of V.O.S. Selections, Inc.:
Before V.O.S. Selections, Inc. advanced to the Supreme Court, plaintiffs in the case were victorious in the CIT, which ruled the tariffs unlawful. The Federal Circuit later affirmed the CIT’s decision that the tariffs were unlawful, but the CIT proceeding was stalled pending the mandate, which itself would not be issued until the Supreme Court ruled. On Friday, February 20, the Supreme Court ruled the tariffs were unlawful.
With a definitive SCOTUS ruling in hand, plaintiffs in the case filed separate Motions in both the Federal Circuit and the CIT, on Tuesday, February 24. In addition to the above-described Federal Circuit filing regarding the mandate, plaintiffs filing with the CIT sought that the CIT begin the refund process once they receive such mandate. The government’s response to plaintiff’s CIT filing is due Tuesday, March 17, and may give further indication regarding its posture as to refunds.
Next Steps for Importers:
The government’s latest filing builds on the statements of President Trump and Treasury Scott Bessent suggesting the Administration does not intend to facilitate an easy refund process with any immediacy. The Federal Circuit, however, has resisted government attempts to delay the Court process in the V.O.S. case.
With that in mind, GKG Law reiterates its December 2025 analysis that importers seeking the most conservative approach and greatest insurance of obtaining IEEPA tariff refunds would be prudent to file a claim for refund with the Court of International Trade before their entries’ liquidation, Customs and Border Protection’s (“CBP’s”) final computation or ascertainment of duties on entries for consumption, which typically occurs at or around 314 days after entry.
GKG Law’s IEEPA tariff litigation team, which includes me, Brendan Collins, and Oliver M. Krischik, has already filed numerous such complaints prior to the SCOTUS ruling, and is prepared to continue to do so swiftly in the days ahead.
Please contact us if you have any questions or are interested in filing such a Complaint.
John H. Kester is a Customs attorney with GKG Law. He additionally passed Customs and Border Protection’s rigorous Customs Broker License Exam and his application for a Customs Broker License is pending. He is reachable at jkester@gkglaw.com.
Brendan Collins and Oliver M. Krischik, Principals with GKG Law, additionally participated in the firm’s numerous filings in opposition to the Section 301 tariffs implemented by President Trump’s first administration. They are reachable at bcollins@gkglaw.com and okrischik@gkglaw.com respectively.
