Federal Circuit Denies Trump Delay, Issues Mandates “Forthwith”: What It Means for Your Refund
In a decisive Monday ruling, the Federal Circuit rejected DOJ's request for a 90-day stay and ordered its mandates to issue immediately. The $175 billion IEEPA refund reckoning at the Court of International Trade starts now.
What Happened Today
On March 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dissolved the stay that had held its mandate in abeyance since August 2025, ordering its mandates to “issue forthwith” in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump and the companion Learning Resources case. The ruling was issued en banc per curiam — the full court, unanimous, no dissent.
This is the procedural step that formally returns the case to the Court of International Trade (CIT), which now faces the task of overseeing what could be the largest government refund obligation in American history: an estimated $175 billion in IEEPA tariff collections that the Supreme Court declared unlawful on February 20.
Bottom line: The government asked for 90 days. The court gave them zero. Every day of delay is now on the administration, not the courts.
The 72-Hour Legal Battle
The speed of this fight was unusual. On Friday evening, February 27, DOJ filed a motion asking the Federal Circuit to wait at least 90 days before issuing its mandate — framing the request as time to “allow the political branches an opportunity to consider options.” They invoked Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., where the Supreme Court stayed its own judgment to give Congress time to respond.
Neal Katyal of Milbank, representing the V.O.S. plaintiffs, filed a reply over the weekend that was pointed: the government “cites nothing” for the proposition that the Federal Circuit must wait for the Supreme Court's certified judgment, and “notably did not deny the force of its own stipulations guaranteeing refunds to all similarly situated plaintiffs.”
By Monday afternoon, the court ruled. No stay. No 90 days. Mandates issue forthwith.
Why “Forthwith” Matters
In legal terms, “forthwith” means immediately — without delay. The Federal Circuit could have issued the mandates on a standard timeline (typically after the Supreme Court's 32-day judgment certification period under Rule 45.3). Instead, the court chose the strongest possible language to reject the government's delay tactic.
This matters for three reasons:
- • CIT can begin refund proceedings immediately. No need to wait for Supreme Court administrative steps.
- • The government's delay strategy has failed at every level. SCOTUS ruled 6-3, the Federal Circuit issued mandates same-day, and every stalling motion has been denied.
- • Interest continues accruing. Every day the government delays payment, the total obligation grows. The clock is now running against the Treasury, not importers.
What Happens at CIT Now
With the mandates issued, the case returns to the Court of International Trade. Here's what to expect:
The procedural vacuum is the biggest challenge. There is no congressionally mandated process for administering refunds of this scale. The Supreme Court did not address the refund mechanism in its ruling. CBP has no existing administrative procedure for mass IEEPA refund processing. CIT will likely need to craft a refund framework from scratch.
The government will likely seek more time at CIT. DOJ has already signaled that it believes the refund process could take years. Expect motions for extended timelines, phased processing, and procedural arguments about how to handle the estimated 2,000+ companies and millions of customs entries involved.
Importers' counsel is moving fast. After the ruling, Neal Katyal stated his team “will be proceeding immediately to get the refunds Americans are owed.” The Liberty Justice Center, which brought the original small business challenge, has already filed motions seeking permanent injunctive relief and immediate administrative refunds.
Key point: Recovery is unlikely to occur through standard CBP administrative protest procedures. Importers will almost certainly need to pursue refunds through CIT litigation. If you haven't filed a claim yet, the window to join the class of “similarly situated plaintiffs” is open but may not stay open indefinitely.
The Growing Wave of Claims
The SCOTUS ruling has triggered a flood of refund litigation. Major corporations including FedEx, Costco, Revlon, Hasbro, and BASF have filed claims at CIT. Senate Democrats have introduced the “Tariff Refund Act of 2026,” seeking to force Treasury to issue full refunds with interest within 180 days, prioritizing small businesses.
Meanwhile, class-action lawsuits have expanded beyond importers to the broader supply chain. Retail customers have sued FedEx and EssilorLuxottica (Ray-Ban) seeking tariff-related refunds passed through from end consumers.
The total potential refund obligation of $175 billion (Penn-Wharton estimate) makes this unprecedented in scale. For context, the next-largest customs refund event in U.S. history was the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) distributions, which totaled approximately $2 billion. This is nearly 90 times that size.
The Section 122 Pressure Point
There's an additional dimension working in importers' favor. The replacement tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 have a hard statutory ceiling of 150 days (expiring approximately July 24, 2026) unless Congress votes to extend them. Congressional extension is considered unlikely in the current political environment.
This creates a dual pressure: the government owes $175 billion in IEEPA refunds while simultaneously watching its replacement tariff authority expire on a fixed timeline. The DOJ's strategy of “delay and hope for a legislative fix” is running headlong into calendars that don't care about political preferences.
What You Should Do Right Now
- File your claim at CIT if you haven't already. The government's own stipulation guarantees refunds with interest to “all current and future similarly situated plaintiffs.” But being a plaintiff requires actually filing. Don't assume someone else's lawsuit covers you.
- Preserve all customs documentation. Entry summaries, duty payment records, broker communications, and any correspondence with CBP. The refund process will require proof of payment at minimum.
- Talk to trade counsel now, not later. CIT litigation requires specialized attorneys admitted to practice before the trade court. General commercial counsel typically cannot represent you here. The Liberty Justice Center, Milbank, and several trade-specialized firms are actively coordinating on the importer side.
- Monitor the CIT docket. Now that mandates have issued, expect CIT to schedule an initial status conference within weeks. The procedural framework that emerges from these early proceedings will define the refund timeline for everyone.
- Don't sell your claim at a steep discount. Today's ruling strengthened the refund timeline significantly. The government's delay tactics are failing. Claims are worth more today than they were Friday.
Updated Timeline Estimate
The Federal Circuit's ruling today removed the biggest near-term risk to the refund timeline. The fight now shifts to CIT, where the procedural questions are genuinely complex but the legal obligation is settled. The government will pay. The question is how fast.
TariffRefundIQ provides analysis and commentary for importers navigating IEEPA tariff refund claims. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult qualified trade counsel for guidance on your specific situation.