FAQS 

Through a series of executive orders, President Trump has declared two “emergencies” that he has stated justify the imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). First, he declared an emergency relating to the trafficking of illegal drugs across the borders into the United States. Second, he declared an emergency relating to trade deficits with other countries. The President then used each of these declared emergencies to impose new tariffs that have become knows as the Trafficking Tariffs and the Reciprocal Tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs were imposed on products of China, Mexico, and Canada; current rates are 20% (China), 25% (Mexico), and 35% (Canada). The Reciprocal Tariffs were set at varying rates on products of many of the world’s countries, currently at rates between 10% and 41%.

The Supreme Court likely will hold that President Trump did not have legal authority to impose the IEEPA tariffs.

We have followed this issue carefully, and believe that the arguments against the tariffs are both more numerous and stronger than the rather narrow argument in favor of the tariffs. But you don’t need to take our word for it. Fifteen federal judges have already ruled on the issue in the lower courts after considering the arguments made by both sides, including by the U.S. Department of Justice arguing in favor of the tariffs. Of those 15 judges, 11 concluded that the President did not have lawful authority, and only 4 concluded that he did. So, 73% against the tariffs, and only 27% in favor of the tariffs. In our view, this is a strong signal that the arguments against the tariffs are stronger than the argument in favor of the tariffs.

The Supreme Court, of course, is not bound by those lower court decisions, and is free to reach its own conclusion. Nobody can accurately predict the outcome of any case before the Supreme Court with absolute certainty. But, our opinion, the 73% to 27% split among the judges that have already considered and ruled on the issue is as good an estimate of the odds as one could give at this stage.

You may be hearing advice from many different voices about how best to protect your potential right to a refund of duties paid under the IEEPA tariffs. Some of those voices might be urging you to take steps to extend liquidation and prepare to file protests with CBP if the Supreme Court rules against the IEEPA tariffs.

While that isn’t bad advice, we think very good reasons exist to also file a case in the Court of International Trade (CIT), which is the other available path. Here are three reasons:

First, if the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, CBP will be overwhelmed with refund claims. And, importantly, given the huge dollar amounts at issue, CBP may have incentives to move very slowly to process those refund claims. And if, for some reason, CBP denies your protest, you will have to go to court anyhow, after having first waited a long time for CBP’s determination. So, if you rely only on administrative procedures with CBP, you may be in for a long and uncertain wait to receive your refund.

Second, unlike the CBP protest process, cases filed in the CIT will be overseen by independent Article III judges, rather than by CBP bureaucrats beholden to the President for their jobs. Judges generally have an incentives to move cases as quickly as they can to get them off their dockets. And, very importantly, the end result of a CIT case will be a court order, directing the government to make the refund you are owed. So, generally, we believe the CIT offers a more independent, potentially quicker, and more certain process than protests or other administrative claims filed with CBP.

Third, it is possible that, even if the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the government will take the position that it has no obligation to make refunds to anyone other than the actual parties to that case. How can that be? Well, it has to do with something called the “universal injunction” issue. In a case decided earlier this year, Trump v. Casa, Inc., the Supreme Court held, for the first time, that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to issue “universal injunctions” in cases brought by individual plaintiffs. In other words, if a plaintiff sues the government, claiming that the government did something unlawful to that plaintiff, the federal courts cannot issue an injunction prohibiting the government from doing that same thing to other parties who did not join the lawsuit. Potential procedural ways around this problem – class actions, or claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) – do exist. But Trump v. V.O.S. Selections is neither a class action nor an APA case. Accordingly, even if it loses in the Supreme Court, the government may well take the position that it is required to make refunds only to the plaintiffs in the case before the Supreme Court. And the only way around this for other companies who have paid duties under the IEEPA tariffs would be for them to file their own cases in the CIT.

In sum, we believe very good reasons exist for companies who may be owed large refunds to file cases in the CIT, rather than just sitting back and hoping to get refunds eventually through a CBP-administered process.

Of course, this is a largely unprecedented situation, and outcomes are difficult to predict. Each company that may be owed refunds should carefully consider its options based on the facts and circumstances faced by that particular company, and should seek independent legal advice on how best to proceed.

To begin the process of preparing a case to file in the Court of International Trade, you will need to be able to carefully and accurately document all of the amounts that you have paid under the IEEPA tariffs. We would recommend compiling a complete paper trail, including the relevant CBP Form 7501 Entry Summaries, ACE reports, and all records of payment. DO NOT ASSUME THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL FIGURE THIS OUT FOR YOU. You will have the burden of proof, and need to be prepared to demonstrate the amounts you are owed.

If you believe you have paid duties under the IEEPA tariffs, we would recommend creating a spreadsheet or other document that lists all of your entries for which you paid any such duties, and then for each entry breaks down the amount of duties paid under each separate tariff. If you decide to file a case in the CIT, and retain our firm, we will need that information and the back-up documents.

This effort is being led by Jonathan Tycko, who has been practicing in the area of customs law for many years. Mr. Tycko is a graduate of Johns Hopking University, and Columbia Law School, and has been a practicing litigator for more than 30 years. Mr. Tycko’s primary practice involves representing whistleblowers in what are known as qui tam cases under the False Claims Act, and many of his cases have involved various customs fraud schemes. Through his cutting-edge work on those customs fraud cases, Mr. Tycko has developed deep familiarity with customs and tariffs, and has been following the IEEPA issue closely.

In addition, Tycko & Zavareei LLP is a firm focused on representing plaintiffs in high-stakes cases involving large dollar amounts. Our firm knows how to aggressively and efficiently litigate on behalf of our clients. And because we handle our litigation on a contingency fee basis, our interests in both speed and substantial recovery are aligned with our clients’ interests. We want what you want: a big recovery, and a quick-as-possible recovery.

We know you have many options when it comes to choosing a law firm. You will not be disappointed if you work with us.

At least through November 4, 2025, we are offering to handle IEEPA cases on a 10% contingency fee basis. This is far below our normal contingency fee, but we believe that we can handle these cases efficiently and in large volume. Why only through November 4? The Supreme Court’s arguments are set for November 5, and if those arguments strongly suggest that the Court will rule against the tariffs, as we expect they will, then we expect a surge in demand, and may decide to alter our terms as a result.

The full terms will be set forth in a retention agreement between your company and our firm, which you will have an opportunity to review before deciding whether to hire us. But we believe that the 10% contingency fee we are offering now will be highly competitive, relative to other options you may have for hiring law firms to handle your IEEPA refund case in the CIT.