The Supreme Court ended IEEPA tariffs, so the reciprocal and trafficking duties stopped and the open question is refunds. Track terminated entries, reliquidation, and replacements.
This page is the public entry point. It explains the issue, links to the public tools that surface the primary records, and routes repeat work into review.
Use this when the first question is when collection stopped for a given entry date.
Use this when the question is how and when duties already paid are returned.
Use this when the question is which duties still apply to the line after IEEPA.
The IEEPA tariffs moved from collection to termination to refunds inside a few months. For an importer the open work is no longer the rate but the status of affected entries and the measures that took their place.
Traverse keeps each IEEPA action tied to the affected entries, the refund mechanics, and the replacement measures on the same line, so the question stays connected to the source records rather than the headline.
On February 20, 2026 the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. The reciprocal and trafficking duties were terminated and Customs stopped collecting them on entries made on or after February 24, 2026.
Refunds run through liquidation and reliquidation of affected entries rather than a single payment. The records to track are the entries that carried IEEPA duties, their liquidation status, and the Customs guidance that governs how refunds are processed.
Some coverage shifted to other authorities, including the Section 122 balance-of-payments surcharge and existing Section 232 and Section 301 measures. The duty owed on a line now depends on which of those measures still applies, not on IEEPA.
James Poole filed a motion for leave to submit an amicus curiae brief in State of Oregon v. Trump (No. 26-1804) at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a case implicating USTR and IEEPA tariff authority. The filing signals continued third-party interest in the appellate proceedings challenging the executive's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs.
A memorandum in opposition was filed in the D.D.C. case LC v. Trump, asserting that the court order and IEEPA authority remain unchanged. The filing appears to contest or respond to arguments regarding the legal basis for IEEPA-derived trade measures.
A memorandum in support (Document 15) filed in Bojkov v. Smith before the U.S. District Court for D.C. centers on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The filing signals ongoing judicial scrutiny of IEEPA's scope or application in this case.
Keep affected entries, reliquidation status, and replacement measures together for one origin and HTS set. Review IEEPA refund scope.