IEEPA Tariff Refunds: From the Supreme Court Ruling to the Console Lawsuits
EconomySupreme CourtTariffsTrade policy
President Trump used IEEPA in February and April 2025 to impose trafficking and reciprocal import tariffs. The Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit held that IEEPA did not authorize them, and the Supreme Court affirmed 6-3 on February 20, 2026. The trade court then ordered broad refunds, while CBP built the CAPE system to process them; DOJ is appealing whether importers that did not sue can receive relief, and older liquidated entries remain a central issue. Companies including Nintendo, Sony, Apple and Tapestry have sought or reported refunds, while console buyers have sued Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft claiming tariff-related price increases should be repaid if the companies recover duties.
Key moments
- Feb 1, 2025Trump invokes IEEPA for the first tariffs: 10% on China, 25% on Canada and Mexico over fentanyl
- Apr 2, 2025Executive Order 14257: a 10% worldwide tariff and higher reciprocal rates on dozens of countries
- May 28, 2025Court of International Trade rules the IEEPA tariffs unlawful in V.O.S. Selections and the states' case
- Aug 29, 2025Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirms 7 to 4 that IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs
- Feb 20, 2026Supreme Court holds 6 to 3 that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs
- Feb 20, 2026Same day, Trump imposes a 10% Section 122 surcharge for 150 days to replace the struck-down tariffs
- Mar 4, 2026Trade court orders CBP to refund IEEPA duties to every importer, not just those who sued
- Apr 20, 2026CBP launches CAPE, the bulk refund tool in ACE, for the first phase of IEEPA refunds
- Jun 3, 2026Justice Department appeals the universal refund orders; CBP says $23 billion has gone to Treasury
- Jul 24, 2026Section 122 surcharge lapses after 150 days; Section 301 duties on some 60 economies take its place
- Aug 4, 2026Sony expects ¥80 billion, about $508 million, in tariff refunds, most of it to the PlayStation business
- Aug 31, 2026Sony and Microsoft ask courts to dismiss the console refund suits: buyers got what they paid for
In numbers
Data and sources (3 points)
| Date | IEEPA duties collected | Entry |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2026 | $166B | Supreme Court holds 6 to 3 that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs |
| Mar 6, 2026 | $200B | Nintendo sues the U.S. government at the trade court for a refund of its IEEPA duties with interest |
| Jun 3, 2026 | $166B | Justice Department appeals the universal refund orders; CBP says $23 billion has gone to Treasury |
Timeline
Earlier years show only their entries' dates and titles. Click a year heading to show the details.
202620 entries
- LegalKey moment
Sony and Microsoft ask courts to dismiss the console refund suits: buyers got what they paid for
Sony moved to dismiss the consolidated PS5 case in the Northern District of California on August 31, after Microsoft's August 21 motion in the Western District of Washington and Nintendo's on July 20, all arguing that paying an advertised price for a voluntarily purchased console is not a legal injury and that the price rises reflected inflation, component costs and demand rather than tariffs alone. Sony noted its second, $100 increase came after the tariffs were struck down. Costco and Walmart said refunds would flow to customers as lower prices; Nintendo's refund was put at about $300 million.
- SlashGear · Sep 4, 2026 ·
Several companies, including Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, are facing lawsuits over the issue, but Sony wants its lawsuit dismissed.
- SlashGear · Sep 4, 2026 ·
- FinancialKey moment
Sony expects ¥80 billion, about $508 million, in tariff refunds, most of it to the PlayStation business
In its first-quarter results Sony said it expected to have received ¥80 billion in U.S. tariff refunds, about 70% of it already collected in the April to June quarter, with most going to the games division, and cited the refund as one reason for raising its full-year operating income forecast by 10%. The base PS5 had gone from $500 in early 2025 to $550 in August 2025 and $650 in April 2026. Consolidated PlayStation class actions were pending and Sony was due to respond in August.
- Game File · Aug 4, 2026 ·
Sony estimates it will have received ¥80 billion ($508 million) in tariff refunds from the United States government, in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling in February that the global levies imposed by the Trump administration were illegal.
- Game File · Aug 4, 2026 ·
- RegulatoryKey moment
Section 122 surcharge lapses after 150 days; Section 301 duties on some 60 economies take its place
The temporary 10% surcharge expired as the statute required, and the same day a Section 301 tariff on goods made with forced labour took effect across about sixty economies, two days after a Section 301 tariff on Brazil. Global Trade Alert calculated that the trade-weighted average U.S. tariff barely moved, from 11.0% to 11.2%, but the structure shifted from a near-uniform surcharge back to country-specific duties, with China's average rising to 27.2%.
- Global Trade Alert · Jul 24, 2026 ·
On 22 July the Section 301 tariff on Brazil entered force; on 24 July the temporary Section 122 surcharge lapsed and a Section 301 tariff on goods made with forced labour took effect across some sixty economies.
- Global Trade Alert · Jul 24, 2026 ·
- Response
Nintendo moves to dismiss consumer tariff-refund class action
Nintendo moved to dismiss the proposed consumer class action brought by Hoffert and Sharan. It argued that plaintiffs were not entitled to a rebate based on legal developments related to tariffs.
- Hoffert v. Nintendo of America motion to dismiss · Jul 20, 2026 ·
Plaintiffs are not entitled to a rebate simply because of intervening legal developments related to tariffs.
responded to Consumers sue Nintendo over tariff refunds and consumer prices.
Editor's note: The document is Nintendo's motion to dismiss in the Hoffert and Sharan proposed class action. It was filed on 2026-07-20 and expressly argues that plaintiffs are not entitled to a rebate because of intervening legal developments related to tariffs.
- Hoffert v. Nintendo of America motion to dismiss · Jul 20, 2026 ·
- Legal
Trade court authorizes CAPE path for older plaintiffs' entries
The Court of International Trade ordered CBP to reliquidate plaintiffs' entries that had been liquidated for more than 80 days without regard to IEEPA duties. The order applied after CBP accepted a plaintiff's CAPE declaration.
- U.S. Court of International Trade, In re Tariffs Collected in Reliance on IEEPA · Jul 15, 2026 ·
U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall reliquidate, without regard to IEEPA duties, any and all of Plaintiffs’ entries that have been liquidated for more than 80 days.
responded to CBP sends $86.3 billion in refunds to Treasury.
Editor's note: The order directs CBP to reliquidate plaintiffs’ IEEPA-duty entries liquidated for more than 80 days, conditioned on counsel’s required submission and CBP’s acceptance of plaintiffs’ CAPE declarations. The order is dated and filed July 15, 2026.
- U.S. Court of International Trade, In re Tariffs Collected in Reliance on IEEPA · Jul 15, 2026 ·
- Financial
CBP sends $86.3 billion in refunds to Treasury
CBP had sent approximately $86.3 billion in refunds to the Department of the Treasury for disbursement. The Court of International Trade recited that status in its July 15 order.
- U.S. Court of International Trade, In re Tariffs Collected in Reliance on IEEPA · Jul 15, 2026 ·
To date, approximately $86.3 billion in refunds have been sent to the U.S. Department of Treasury for disbursement.
was answered by Trade court authorizes CAPE path for older plaintiffs' entries.
Editor's note: The July 15, 2026 order states that, as of July 10, 2026, approximately $86.3 billion in refunds had been sent to the U.S. Department of Treasury for disbursement. The quoted language appears on the page.
- U.S. Court of International Trade, In re Tariffs Collected in Reliance on IEEPA · Jul 15, 2026 ·
- Financial
Apple says it applied for CBP tariff refunds
Apple disclosed that it had applied for refunds of tariffs paid through CBP processes. It said tariff refunds contributed to product gross-margin improvement during the quarter.
- Apple Inc. Form 10-Q ·
The Company has applied for a refund of tariffs paid, following the processes established by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Editor's note: The filing states that Apple applied for refunds of tariffs paid through U.S. Customs and Border Protection processes and recognized refunds received as reductions of products cost of sales. It also says tariff refunds contributed to products gross-margin improvement, but it does not give a July 2026 date for the application or disclosure.
- Apple Inc. Form 10-Q ·
- Financial
Tapestry records $114.7 million IEEPA refund receivable
Tapestry estimated that its probable tariff refund was $114.7 million and recorded that amount as a receivable. It reported receiving $2.1 million in fourth-quarter cash refunds.
- Tapestry, Inc. Form 10-K · Jun 27, 2026 ·
We estimate the amount of the probable refund to be $114.7 million, which was recorded as a receivable.
Editor's note: The Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended 2026-06-27 states that Tapestry estimated a probable IEEPA tariff refund of $114.7 million and recorded it as a receivable. It also reports $2.1 million of cash refunds received during the fourth quarter.
- Tapestry, Inc. Form 10-K · Jun 27, 2026 ·
- Legal
Consumer sues Microsoft over Xbox tariff charges and refunds
Trevor Hastings filed a proposed consumer class action against Microsoft. The complaint alleged Microsoft could collect tariff-related costs from consumers and also receive federal tariff refunds.
- Hastings v. Microsoft Corporation complaint · Jun 17, 2026 ·
If unchecked, Microsoft will reap those tariff payments twice – once in the form of pass-through costs imposed on consumers like Plaintiff, and then again from the federal government through its tariff refund program, including interest.
Editor's note: The complaint identifies Trevor Hastings as the plaintiff in a proposed class action against Microsoft and alleges Microsoft passed tariff costs to consumers while seeking federal refunds for the same duties. It was filed in King County Superior Court on 2026-06-17.
- Hastings v. Microsoft Corporation complaint · Jun 17, 2026 ·
- LegalKey moment
Justice Department appeals the universal refund orders; CBP says $23 billion has gone to Treasury
DOJ filed notices of appeal at the Federal Circuit arguing the trade court cannot order refunds to importers who never sued, the CASA argument it had flagged in March. At a June 9 hearing CBP's trade chief Susan Thomas testified that CAPE had accepted claims covering about $90 billion of the $166 billion collected and transmitted about $23 billion to Treasury, having processed refunds on nearly 8.5 million entries in six weeks. Entries liquidated more than 80 days earlier, worth perhaps $30 billion, remained contested.
- Holland & Knight · Jun 15, 2026 ·
On June 3, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed notices of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- Holland & Knight · Jun 15, 2026 ·
- Financial
CBP reports $20.6 billion in CAPE refunds completed
CBP reported that approximately $20.6 billion in duty and interest refunds had been completed using CAPE. The declaration was filed in Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States. Four days later CBP corrected an earlier estimate of refunds in process to $25.46 billion, clarifying that a prior figure of about $35.46 billion had been overstated.
- CBP declaration in Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States · May 26, 2026 ·
Of this total amount, refunds (duties plus interest) of approximately $20.6 billion have been completed using the CAPE Refund component.
Editor's note: The declaration in Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States states that, as of 3 p.m. Eastern on May 22, 2026, approximately $20.6 billion in duty-plus-interest refunds had been completed using CAPE. The document was filed on May 26, 2026, but the reported refund status is explicitly dated May 22, 2026.
- CBP declaration in Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States · May 26, 2026 ·
- Legal
Trade court strikes down the Section 122 surcharge; Federal Circuit stays the ruling five days later
In Oregon v. United States and Burlap and Barrel v. United States the Court of International Trade held Proclamation 11012 invalid because trade and current-account deficits are not the balance-of-payments deficits Section 122 was written for. Relief was limited to the plaintiffs, the State of Washington, Burlap and Barrel and toymaker Basic Fun, and on May 12 the Federal Circuit issued an administrative stay, so collection of the 10% surcharge continued while the appeal proceeded.
- Ward and Smith · May 13, 2026 ·
On May 7, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade held that Proclamation 11012, which imposed a temporary 10% import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, was invalid because the proclamation did not identify the type of “balance-of-payments deficits” required by the statute.
- Ward and Smith · May 13, 2026 ·
- Legal
PS5 buyers file a class action demanding a share of Sony's tariff refunds
Walker v. Sony Interactive Entertainment, filed in the Northern District of California, argued that Sony's $50 price increase on every PS5 model in August 2025 was a response to the tariffs and that keeping the refunds would be a double recovery windfall, on behalf of everyone who bought a PlayStation console from August 1, 2025. Similar suits had been filed against Nintendo in April and would follow against Microsoft in July; the PlayStation cases were later consolidated.
- Player.One · May 6, 2026 ·
The case, titled Walker et al v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, was filed on May 6, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Player.One · May 6, 2026 ·
- Legal
Consumers sue Nintendo over tariff refunds and consumer prices
Gregory Hoffert and Prashant Sharan filed a proposed class action against Nintendo of America. They alleged Nintendo could recover tariff payments from consumers through higher prices and from the federal government through refunds.
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Hoffert v. Nintendo of America · Apr 21, 2026 ·
Unless restrained by this Court, Nintendo stands to recover the same tariff payments twice—once from consumers through higher prices and again from the federal government through tariff refunds, including interest paid by the government on those funds.
responded to CBP launches CAPE, the bulk refund tool in ACE, for the first phase of IEEPA refunds. was answered by Nintendo moves to dismiss consumer tariff-refund class action.
Editor's note: The complaint identifies Gregory Hoffert and Prashant Sharan as plaintiffs in a proposed class action against Nintendo of America and alleges that Nintendo passed tariff costs to consumers while seeking federal tariff refunds. It was filed on 2026-04-21.
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Hoffert v. Nintendo of America · Apr 21, 2026 ·
- RegulatoryKey moment
CBP launches CAPE, the bulk refund tool in ACE, for the first phase of IEEPA refunds
Customs and Border Protection opened the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries tool inside the Automated Commercial Environment so importers and brokers could file a CSV list of entries and receive consolidated refunds with interest by ACH instead of entry-by-entry claims. Phase 1 covered unliquidated entries and entries within 80 days of liquidation; reconciliation-flagged entries followed on June 29, and finally liquidated entries were left to a later phase. By mid-May more than 126,000 declarations covering 15 million entries had been accepted.
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection · Apr 20, 2026 ·
On April 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tool in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE).
was answered by Consumers sue Nintendo over tariff refunds and consumer prices.
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection · Apr 20, 2026 ·
- Legal
Trade court orders final entries reliquidated without IEEPA duties
The Court of International Trade ordered that finally liquidated entries be reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties. The order concerned entries for which liquidation was final.
- U.S. Court of International Trade, V.O.S. Selections · Apr 17, 2026 ·
Any liquidated entries for which liquidation is final shall be reliquidated without regard to the IEEPA duties.
Editor's note: The order expressly directs that liquidated entries for which liquidation is final be reliquidated without regard to IEEPA duties. It is dated April 17, 2026.
- U.S. Court of International Trade, V.O.S. Selections · Apr 17, 2026 ·
- Legal
Nintendo sues the U.S. government at the trade court for a refund of its IEEPA duties with interest
Nintendo of America filed at the Court of International Trade seeking every IEEPA duty it had paid, with interest and fees, joining more than a thousand companies that had already sued. Its complaint put total IEEPA collections above $200 billion. The tariffs had pushed console makers to raise prices in 2025, which is what later turned the refunds into consumer class actions.
- TechCrunch · Mar 6, 2026 ·
Nintendo filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government on Friday over its extraction of tariffs from global businesses.
- TechCrunch · Mar 6, 2026 ·
- LegalKey moment
Trade court orders CBP to refund IEEPA duties to every importer, not just those who sued
Judge Richard Eaton of the Court of International Trade, in a case brought by importer Atmus Filtration, ordered Customs to liquidate unliquidated entries without IEEPA duties and to reliquidate entries whose liquidation was not yet final, and held that the relief reaches all importers because the trade court's exclusive nationwide jurisdiction is not subject to the limits on universal injunctions in Trump v. CASA. The government, which had argued that only the 2,000-plus companies with claims on file should be refunded, was denied a stay and said it would appeal.
- Holland & Knight · Mar 6, 2026 ·
Most notably, the CIT stated that its Refund Order applies to all importers, not only those that filed lawsuits.
- Holland & Knight · Mar 6, 2026 ·
- RegulatoryKey moment
Same day, Trump imposes a 10% Section 122 surcharge for 150 days to replace the struck-down tariffs
Hours after the ruling Trump signed Proclamation 11012 under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a balance-of-payments authority that allows an import surcharge of up to 15% for at most 150 days without Congress. The 10% surcharge applied to imports from all countries from February 24 with product exceptions, and by statute expired on July 24, 2026. Trump called the Court's decision extraordinarily anti-American and briefly raised the rate to 15%, drawing a new suit from 24 states.
- Federal Register · Feb 25, 2026 ·
Specifically, my advisors have determined that an import surcharge in the form of ad valorem duties is required to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.
- Federal Register · Feb 25, 2026 ·
- LegalKey moment
Supreme Court holds 6 to 3 that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs
Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court in Learning Resources v. Trump: the taxing power belongs to Congress, and when Congress has delegated tariff authority it has done so explicitly and with limits, so IEEPA's words regulate and importation cannot carry a delegation of unbounded tariff power. The Federal Circuit was affirmed and the D.C. district-court case was sent back to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. By then CBP had collected roughly $166 billion in IEEPA duties from about 330,000 importers on 53 million entries, all of it now potentially refundable.
- Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 20, 2026 ·
Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.
- Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 20, 2026 ·
20257 entries
- Legal
Supreme Court hears the consolidated tariff cases and sounds skeptical of the government
After granting certiorari on September 9 and expediting the cases, the Court heard nearly three hours of argument in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that regulating importation plainly embraces tariffs; Neal Katyal for the businesses and Oregon's Benjamin Gutman for the states argued that IEEPA never mentions tariffs, duties or taxes. Justices across the spectrum pressed the government to point to statutory text authorising tariffs.
- SCOTUSblog · Nov 5, 2025 ·
The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed skeptical of President Donald Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs in a series of executive orders earlier this year. During more than two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments, a majority of the justices appeared to agree with the small businesses and states challenging the tariffs that they exceeded the powers given to the president under a federal law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.
- SCOTUSblog · Nov 5, 2025 ·
- LegalKey moment
Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirms 7 to 4 that IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs
The full Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that IEEPA's grant of authority to regulate imports does not authorize tariffs that are unbounded in scope, amount and duration, while vacating the trade court's nationwide injunction for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's CASA decision on universal relief. The court stayed its mandate until October 14 so the government could seek Supreme Court review, and the tariffs stayed in force.
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Aug 29, 2025 ·
Because we agree that IEEPA’s grant of presidential authority to “regulate” imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, we affirm.
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Aug 29, 2025 ·
- Legal
Federal Circuit grants stay pending appeal in Oregon case
The Federal Circuit granted the government's motion for a stay pending appeal. It scheduled expedited oral argument on the merits for July 31, 2025.
- Oregon Department of Justice · Jun 10, 2025 ·
On 6/10/25, the Federal Circuit issued an order granting the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal and scheduled an expedited oral argument on the merits for 7/31/25.
Editor's note: The page states that on 6/10/25 the Federal Circuit granted the government's motion for a stay pending appeal and scheduled expedited merits argument for 7/31/25. The update is listed under 06/10/2025.
- Oregon Department of Justice · Jun 10, 2025 ·
- LegalKey moment
Court of International Trade rules the IEEPA tariffs unlawful in V.O.S. Selections and the states' case
A three-judge panel granted summary judgment to five small importers led by V.O.S. Selections, represented by the Liberty Justice Center, and to twelve states led by Oregon, holding that IEEPA's power to regulate importation does not confer unbounded tariff authority and that the trafficking tariffs did not deal with the emergencies declared. The court set aside both sets of tariffs and enjoined them nationwide. The Federal Circuit stayed the judgment the next day while the government appealed.
- Court of International Trade · May 28, 2025 ·
The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder.
- Oregon Department of Justice · May 29, 2025 ·
On 5/29/25, the Federal Circuit issued an administrative stay order, temporarily pausing the injunction to allow the court to review the government’s stay motion.
- Court of International Trade · May 28, 2025 ·
- Legal
Oregon and allied states file IEEPA tariff challenge
Oregon and allied states filed a complaint in Oregon v. Trump at the Court of International Trade. The case challenged executive orders increasing tariffs under IEEPA.
- Oregon Department of Justice · Apr 23, 2025 ·
On 4/23/25, the plaintiff filed their complaint.
Editor's note: The page states that the case was filed on April 23, 2025 and describes it as a lawsuit challenging executive orders increasing tariffs under IEEPA. It includes the quoted update verbatim.
- Oregon Department of Justice · Apr 23, 2025 ·
- RegulatoryKey moment
Executive Order 14257: a 10% worldwide tariff and higher reciprocal rates on dozens of countries
On what the White House called Liberation Day, Executive Order 14257 declared a national emergency over the $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit and used IEEPA to impose a 10% duty on imports from nearly every country from April 5, with country-specific rates of up to about 50% for around 60 trading partners from April 9. Rates were then repeatedly modified: the higher rates were suspended for 90 days, China's rate was raised to 125% and later cut, and the pause was extended into August. These are the reciprocal tariffs at the centre of the litigation.
- Federal Register · Apr 7, 2025 ·
I have declared a national emergency arising from conditions reflected in large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, which have grown by over 40 percent in the past 5 years alone, reaching $1.2 trillion in 2024.
- Federal Register · Apr 7, 2025 ·
- RegulatoryKey moment
Trump invokes IEEPA for the first tariffs: 10% on China, 25% on Canada and Mexico over fentanyl
Three executive orders signed on February 1, 2025 used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 sanctions statute never before used for tariffs, to impose duties on the three largest U.S. trading partners, citing fentanyl trafficking and migration as a national emergency. The China order took effect February 4; the Canada and Mexico duties were paused for a month and then imposed in March. These trafficking tariffs became one of the two sets of IEEPA duties later struck down.
- Federal Register · Feb 7, 2025 ·
This national emergency requires decisive and immediate action, and I have decided to impose, consistent with law, ad valorem tariffs on articles that are products of the PRC as set forth in this order.
- Federal Register · Feb 7, 2025 ·
- Nov 5, 2025Supreme Court hears the consolidated tariff cases and sounds skeptical of the government
- Aug 29, 2025Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirms 7 to 4 that IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs
- Jun 10, 2025Federal Circuit grants stay pending appeal in Oregon case
- May 28, 2025Court of International Trade rules the IEEPA tariffs unlawful in V.O.S. Selections and the states' case
- Apr 23, 2025Oregon and allied states file IEEPA tariff challenge
- Apr 2, 2025Executive Order 14257: a 10% worldwide tariff and higher reciprocal rates on dozens of countries
- Feb 1, 2025Trump invokes IEEPA for the first tariffs: 10% on China, 25% on Canada and Mexico over fentanyl
Cause and effect
- CBP launches CAPE, the bulk refund tool in ACE, for the first phase of IEEPA refundswas answered by →Consumers sue Nintendo over tariff refunds and consumer pricesThe Nintendo complaint alleged that the company's consumer price increases and federal tariff refunds could produce two recoveries.
- CBP sends $86.3 billion in refunds to Treasurywas answered by →Trade court authorizes CAPE path for older plaintiffs' entriesThe trade court created a path for plaintiffs' entries older than 80 days amid continuing CAPE refund processing.
- Consumers sue Nintendo over tariff refunds and consumer priceswas answered by →Nintendo moves to dismiss consumer tariff-refund class actionNintendo's motion sought dismissal of the consumer class action filed by Hoffert and Sharan.
Where sources disagree or fall silent
- Whether the Federal Circuit will uphold the trade court's conclusion that all importers, rather than only plaintiffs, can obtain refunds under the trade court's nationwide jurisdiction.
- How CBP will process and pay refunds for entries liquidated more than 80 days earlier or finally liquidated, particularly for importers outside the plaintiff group.
- How much of the IEEPA duties collected will ultimately be refunded, including statutory interest, after CBP's staged CAPE processing and the pending appeal.
- Whether console buyers can establish that tariff-related price increases give them a legal right to a portion of Nintendo's, Sony's, or Microsoft's federal refunds.
- Whether the Section 122 ruling will be resolved on appeal even though the 150-day surcharge expired on July 24, 2026.
What to watch next
- Sep 8, 2026 — CBP IEEPA refund worksheet comments close The comments concern the administrative worksheet importers and brokers may use to seek IEEPA-duty refunds.
- Sep 18, 2026 — CBP enhanced Form 5106 enforcement begins Importer-of-record numbers may be voided for inaccurate data, which could affect ACE and CAPE refund access or payments.
- Nov 5, 2026 — Sony announces FY2026 second-quarter earnings Sony may update investors on tariff-refund receipts, remaining claims, or exposure from the PlayStation consumer litigation.
- Feb 4, 2027 — Sony announces FY2026 third-quarter earnings This is Sony's next scheduled reporting date for updates on IEEPA refund proceeds or related consumer litigation.
Who is involved
- U.S. Customs and Border Protectionregulator
Collects the duties and is operating CAPE and other processes to calculate and disburse IEEPA refunds.
- U.S. Court of International Traderegulator
Invalidated the IEEPA and Section 122 measures at trial and issued the principal refund and reliquidation orders.
- Donald Trumpperson
Issued the 2025 IEEPA tariff orders and the February 2026 Section 122 replacement surcharge.
- Nintendocompany
Sued the government for its refund in March 2026; sued by Switch buyers in April.
Affirmed that IEEPA did not authorize the tariffs, stayed adverse tariff rulings during appeal, and is hearing the refund and Section 122 disputes.
- V.O.S. Selectionscompany
Lead importer plaintiff in the trade-court litigation that produced the ruling against the IEEPA tariffs.
- PlayStation 5product
Sony console line whose price increases and anticipated tariff refund are central to the consolidated consumer litigation.
- Richard K. Eatonperson
Judge identified in Court of International Trade refund proceedings.
23 more
- Sonycompany
Expects about $508 million in refunds; sued by PS5 buyers.
- State of Oregonregulator
Plaintiff in Oregon's IEEPA tariff challenge.
- CAPEproduct
CBP's ACE-based bulk filing tool for consolidated IEEPA-duty refunds with interest.
- Gregory Hoffertperson
Proposed class representative suing Nintendo.
- Learning Resourcescompany
Was the named party in Learning Resources v. Trump, one of the consolidated Supreme Court tariff cases.
- Microsoftcompany
Faces a proposed Xbox consumer class action alleging a tariff-refund double recovery and has sought dismissal.
- Prashant Sharanperson
Proposed class representative suing Nintendo.
- U.S. Department of the Treasuryregulator
Receives refund funds from CBP for disbursement to importers.
- U.S. Supreme Courtregulator
Held in Learning Resources v. Trump that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President.
- Xboxproduct
Microsoft console line at issue in the proposed consumer refund case.
- Applecompany
Disclosed that it applied through CBP for tariff refunds and said refunds aided product gross margin.
- Coachcompany
Tapestry brand named in the company's filing.
- Euro-Notions Floridacompany
Party in litigation containing CBP's CAPE refund declaration.
- John Robertsperson
Wrote the Supreme Court opinion holding that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.
- John Sauerperson
Argued for the government that regulating importation embraces tariffs.
- Kate Spadecompany
Tapestry brand named in the company's filing.
- King County Superior Courtregulator
Court where the Microsoft consumer complaint was filed.
- Liberty Justice Centercompany
Represented the importer plaintiffs led by V.O.S. Selections in the trade-court challenge.
- Neal Katyalperson
Argued for the businesses that IEEPA never mentions tariffs, duties or taxes.
- Susan Thomasperson
Testified that CAPE had accepted claims and that CBP had transmitted refund funds to Treasury.
- Tapestrycompany
Recorded a $114.7 million estimated IEEPA refund receivable in its annual filing.
- Trevor Hastingsperson
Named plaintiff in the proposed class action against Microsoft.
- U.S. Department of Justiceregulator
Appealed the trade court's orders requiring refunds beyond the importers that brought lawsuits.
Changelog
- Chart data refreshed: 4 point(s) across 2 metric(s).
- Summary, key players and catalysts refreshed.
- Summary, key players and catalysts refreshed.
- Added 11 node(s): 2025-04-23 Oregon and allied states file IEEPA tariff challenge; 2025-06-10 Federal Circuit grants stay pending appeal in Oregon case; 2026-04-17 Trade court orders final entries reliquidated without IEEPA duties; 2026-04-21 Consumers sue Nintendo over tariff refunds and consumer prices and 7 more.
- Research run found 16 candidate node(s).
- Seeded 16 hand-verified node(s) from us-tariff-refund-litigation.yaml.
A research pass records each dated fact with the page it came from and a verbatim quote. A second, independent pass re-opens every cited page and rejects entries it cannot confirm. The editor reviews what remains before it is published, and every change is listed above. Full method.