Court of Appeals Denies DOJ’s Stay Motion: What the Ruling Means for IEEPA Refund Processing
By Simple Forwarding | March 2026
The Court of Appeals has denied the Department of Justice’s motion to stay the refund mandate in Learning Resources v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections v. United States. The court rejected the government’s request for a 90-day delay, meaning the refund mandate is now moving forward without the administrative buffer the DOJ sought.
This is a significant procedural development. It compresses the timeline considerably and raises the operational stakes for importers who have not yet completed their pre-refund preparation.
What the Denial Means Procedurally
The DOJ’s stay motion was the government’s primary mechanism for extending the gap between the Supreme Court’s February 20 ruling and the actual commencement of CBP’s IEEPA refund processing obligations. With that motion denied, Customs and Border Protection is now on a materially shorter clock to implement refund procedures.
This does not mean checks are being cut tomorrow. CBP still needs to establish the operational framework for processing refunds at scale — entry identification, duty reconciliation, disbursement scheduling. What it does mean is that the 90-day insulation the government was counting on is gone. The process is moving, and importers who aren’t ready will fall behind it.
Notably, the court’s denial also implicitly rejects the DOJ’s “irreparable harm” framing — the argument that importers’ financial interest in refund recovery didn’t justify expedited relief. The appellate court’s refusal to grant the stay signals that the delay itself was not considered legally justified, regardless of the administrative complexity the government cited.
The Revised Operational Timeline
The denial creates a tighter window across all pre-refund preparation tasks. Importers should treat the following as urgent rather than near-term:
ACE Data Audit — All entry records subject to IEEPA duty assessments need to be reviewed for accuracy and completeness now. CBP will process refunds against the data on file in ACE. Errors, missing entries, or classification inconsistencies will not be resolved in real time during disbursement — they will result in reduced or delayed refunds that require separate post-processing to correct.
ACH Enrollment Verification — As of February 6, 2026, ACH enrollment is mandatory for all CBP refund disbursements. This requirement has not changed, but the timeline pressure has. Importers who have not verified their ACH enrollment status — including confirming accurate banking information and ensuring all relevant importer of record accounts are enrolled — need to do so immediately.
Protest and Amendment Positioning — Depending on how CBP structures the refund mechanism, some entries may require formal protest filings or post-summary corrections to establish refund eligibility. The specific procedural vehicle matters: an incorrect filing type can affect both the refund amount and the timeline. This determination requires review by qualified trade counsel with post-entry amendment experience.
The Section 122 Parallel Track
It bears repeating in light of this development: Section 122 tariffs under Proclamation 11012 are currently in effect and are a separate legal and compliance matter from the IEEPA refund process. The appellate denial in Learning Resources and V.O.S. Selections applies specifically to the IEEPA tariff regime. It has no direct bearing on the Section 122 framework.
Importers should not conflate the momentum of IEEPA refund recovery with a resolution of their ongoing Section 122 duty exposure. Both tracks require active management.
Key Takeaways
The Court of Appeals has removed the government’s primary procedural delay mechanism. The refund process is now advancing on a compressed timeline. Importers who complete their ACE data audit, confirm ACH enrollment, and engage qualified customs and legal representation before CBP’s processing framework is finalized will be positioned to recover their full entitlement. Those who wait for further procedural clarity before preparing will find themselves working against an active process rather than ahead of it.
The legal question has been settled twice now — at the Supreme Court and again at the appellate level. Execution is the remaining variable.
Simple Forwarding provides licensed customs brokerage and trade compliance advisory services. For IEEPA refund exposure assessment, ACE data review, or post-entry amendment strategy under the current refund timeline, contact us directly.
