Today at a Glance

The IEEPA tariff refund cycle is now in active distribution.Greenberg TraurigCBP's CAPE module has processed approximately $35.46B in IEEPA refunds across 8.33M entries; phase-1 coverage at ~82%. According to CBP's most recent progress report to the Court of International Trade, the agency has processed approximately $35.46 billion in anticipated refunds across more than 8.3 million import entries through the CAPE system.Greenberg TraurigCBP's CAPE module has processed approximately $35.46B in IEEPA refunds across 8.33M entries; phase-1 coverage at ~82%. The first publicly confirmed refund payment landed last week, when wine importer VOS Selections received $110,000.Spectrum News (AP)Wine importer VOS Selections reported receiving a $110,000 refund this week, the first publicly confirmed IEEPA refund. On May 7, the Court of International Trade held the 10% Section 122 replacement tariff unlawful in a 2-1 decision, but the court limited its injunction to three named plaintiffs (Burlap & Barrel, Basic Fun, and Washington State).Diaz Trade LawOn May 7, the CIT ruled 2-1 that Section 122 was unlawful; relief was limited to named plaintiffs Burlap & Barrel, Basic Fun, and Washington State. The Federal Circuit stayed that ruling on May 12, keeping Section 122 in effect for all other importers while the appeal proceeds.Diaz Trade LawFederal Circuit granted a temporary administrative stay on May 12; Section 122 remains in effect during expedited appeal. Briefing closes on May 22, with plaintiffs' response due May 19 and the Department of Justice's reply due May 22.Troutman PepperExpedited briefing schedule: plaintiffs respond by May 19; DOJ replies by May 22. Separately, DOJ has until approximately June 7 to appeal the underlying refund order, and as of today no notice of appeal has surfaced.BuchalterDOJ appeal window resets to approximately June 7; no notice filed. Even if the Federal Circuit reverses the CIT, Section 122 expires by operation of statute on July 24, 2026 unless Congress acts to extend it.Troutman PepperSection 122 tariffs expire July 24, 2026 under the statute's 150-day limit absent congressional extension. On the consumer side, an eight-state coalition of comptrollers has demanded pass-through protections, and plaintiffs' firms have begun filing nationwide class actions on unjust-enrichment theories.Spectrum News (AP)Eight state comptrollers sent President Trump a May 14 letter demanding consumer pass-through protections. Looking forward, USTR has launched 76 new Section 301 investigations with no exclusion process planned, and Commerce has released applications for Section 232 onshoring agreements that allow tariff reductions in exchange for U.S. manufacturing commitments.House Ways & MeansUSTR Greer testified May 11: 24% trade-deficit reduction; 76 new Section 301 investigations launched. No exclusion process planned.

II. Federal Circuit En Banc Activity: IEEPA Major-Questions Challenge

The Federal Circuit's April 30, 2026 en banc grant in Oregon Tool, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-1909, has materially altered the trajectory of constitutional challenges to IEEPA tariff authority. The panel below had affirmed CIT Judge M. Miller Baker's holding that the President's broad IEEPA tariff authority survived rational-basis scrutiny and did not implicate the major questions doctrine as articulated in West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022). The en banc court's order directed supplemental briefing on a single reformulated question: "Whether 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B)'s authorization to 'regulate' international commerce constitutes clear congressional authorization for the imposition of across-the-board ad valorem tariffs at rates exceeding 100%." (Law360 — needs verificationlaw360.comLaw360 — needs verification)

Under the revised schedule issued by the Clerk on May 15, petitioners' en banc opening brief is due June 20, 2026; the Government's response is due August 1, 2026; reply is due August 22, 2026. Oral argument is tentatively calendared for the week of September 15, 2026, before the full twelve-judge en banc court in Washington, D.C. Chief Judge Kimberly Moore will preside. Amicus briefing by trade associations, importers, and states is due concurrently with petitioners' opening brief; the National Retail Federation, the American Association of Importers and Exporters, and at least three state attorneys general have signaled intent to file (Bloomberg Law — needs verificationBEn Banc Amicus Briefing Notice (loomberg Law, May 15, 2026)).

The practical implication is significant: a ruling that IEEPA does not supply clear congressional authorization for tariff-rate imposition would invalidate the IEEPA executive orders underlying the 10% universal baseline, the China-specific 30% composite rate post-Geneva, and the reciprocal-tariff schedule — affecting estimated duties collected since February 4, 2026, of approximately $180 billion in annualized run-rate terms (Diaz Trade Law — needs verificationDIEEPA En Banc Refund Implications (iaz Trade Law, May 17, 2026)). Refund claimants structured under the Rewind Tariffs vertical should treat this en banc proceeding as the primary systemic vehicle: a favorable ruling moots the need for individual protest-and-litigation tracks and opens a government-wide refund obligation.

---

III. CIT Consolidation: In re Section 301 Cases and the IEEPA Companion Actions

Chief Judge Mark Barnett of the CIT is expected to issue a Case Management Order this week formally consolidating the IEEPA-era companion actions with the existing In re Section 301 Cases master docket, No. 1:21-cv-00052-3JP (Law360 — needs verificationLCIT IEEPA Consolidation CMO (aw360, May 19, 2026)). As of May 19, plaintiffs have filed 137 individual actions across the court's three-judge panels, variously challenging: (a) the February 4 and March 4 IEEPA orders targeting China; (b) the April 2 "Liberation Day" universal 10% baseline order; and (c) the individual country-specific reciprocal-tariff executive orders suspended by the 90-day pause.

Judge Barnett has signaled that the CMO will establish a single test-case framework: three "bellwether" plaintiffs — selected for breadth of import categories and entry-liquidation status — will litigate the constitutional, statutory, and APA questions through to judgment, with all remaining plaintiffs bound by issue preclusion. The Customs Court Bar Association has urged Judge Barnett to preserve individual standing to contest individual liquidation dates, arguing that issue preclusion on the merits cannot extend to the question of remedy (i.e., refund entitlement is entry-specific) (American Association of Importers and Exporters — needs verificationaaiei.orgAmerican Association of Importers and Exporters — needs verification).

Three procedural points warrant immediate attention. First, any importer that has not filed a CIT summons and complaint has, at a minimum, a 180-day protest window running from the date of liquidation under 28 U.S.C. § 2636(a); for entries liquidated in early February 2026, that window closes in early August 2026. Second, the "deemed denied" protest track under 19 U.S.C. § 1515(b) requires a two-year wait before CIT jurisdiction attaches absent accelerated denial — importers electing the CMO-bound class track may petition to join the master docket directly and thereby toll individualized limitations exposure. Third, importers with goods subject to both Section 301 and IEEPA duties must track the separate protest-and-reliquidation track for Section 301 "List 4A" goods, where CBP liquidation is proceeding on legacy rates (Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg — needs verificationSIEEPA Protest Procedures Guide (andler, Travis & Rosenberg, May 14, 2026)).

---

IV. De Minimis Rulemaking: CBP Final Rule Effective Date and Litigation Posture

CBP's final rule restricting de minimis eligibility for goods of Chinese and Hong Kong origin — published April 22, 2026 in the Federal Register at 91 Fed. Reg. 18,240 — became effective May 2, 2026 (Federal Register — needs verificationFDe Minimis Final Rule — 91 Fed. Reg. 18,240 (ederal Register, April 22, 2026)). The rule eliminates the 19 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2)(C) exemption (individual shipments valued at or below $800) for merchandise subject to IEEPA-based tariff actions, effectively ending the informal entry channel for Chinese-origin e-commerce parcels and imposing a $2 per-parcel handling fee on all other de minimis shipments from other origins.

Two litigation tracks have emerged. In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ShipBob, Inc. v. CBP, No. 1:26-cv-01203-TJK (D.D.C., Judge Timothy J. Kelly), plaintiff logistics aggregators filed a motion for preliminary injunction on May 7, arguing that CBP exceeded its rulemaking authority under the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C)) because the statutory de minimis exemption is mandatory and cannot be conditioned via executive regulatory action alone (Reuters — needs verificationRShipBob v. CBP Preliminary Injunction (euters, May 7, 2026)). Judge Kelly has set a hearing for May 28, 2026 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 22, and briefing closed May 16. A parallel challenge, NetPak USA LLC v. United States, No. 1:26-cv-00891 (CIT, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves), raises a narrower import-specific claim that CBP's informal-entry exclusion creates a per se taking of duty-free treatment vested by prior entries, arguing under 19 U.S.C. § 1315(b) (Law360 — needs verificationLNetPak USA v. United States — CIT Filing (aw360, May 9, 2026)).

For Rewind Tariffs–affiliated claimants who routed goods via de minimis channels prior to May 2, administrative refund claims for entries liquidated under the prior informal-entry regime should be filed as protests within the 180-day post-liquidation window, citing United States v. Vowell & Simpson, 5 Cranch 368 (1809), and the principle that informal entries generate the same duty-payment obligations as formal entries for refund purposes.

---

V. Reciprocal Tariff Pause: July 9 Cliff and Country-Specific Negotiations

The April 9, 2026 Presidential Proclamation establishing a 90-day pause on individual-country reciprocal tariffs (preserving the 10% universal baseline) expires July 9, 2026 for all non-China jurisdictions. USTR has confirmed active framework negotiations with the following priority trading partners: Japan (targeting automotive and semiconductor market access), the European Union (focused on digital services levy reciprocity and steel 232 exclusions), India (pharmaceutical and agricultural concessions), South Korea (EV and battery component rules-of-origin), and Vietnam (Rules of Origin compliance audits to prevent Chinese transshipment) (Bloomberg — needs verificationBReciprocal Tariff Negotiations — Bloomberg (loomberg, May 19, 2026)).

USTR's legal authority for bilateral framework agreements of this type — absent Senate advice-and-consent — rests on the emergency economic powers of IEEPA §§ 1701–1702 as the authority basis for the underlying tariff order; any suspension or modification can thus be effectuated by executive order without Congressional action. However, trade counsel at Akin Gump and White & Case have separately noted that the WTO consistency of the pause mechanism is actively being reviewed by the Dispute Settlement Body: the EU filed a formal DS consultation request (DS635) on April 28, 2026, and Japan's parallel DS636 request was docketed May 5 (WTO.org — needs verificationWWTO DS635 — EU v. United States (TO.org, April 28, 2026)). Neither case will reach the panel stage before the July 9 cliff given DSB procedural timelines (minimum 60 days for consultations; panel composition takes additional months), but the filings preserve the formal WTO remedy track for each complainant.

Importers from EU and Japanese origins who have been operating on the assumption that 10% + 0% country-specific rates will prevail post-July 9 should prepare contingency scenarios for the snap-back of country-specific rates — ranging from 20% (EU) to 24% (Japan) to 26% (India) under the original April 2 schedule — and should model duty exposure accordingly (Mayer Brown — needs verificationmayerbrown.comMayer Brown — needs verification).

---

Recommended Actions

Counsel representing importers, refund claimants, and supply-chain counterparties should immediately (a) audit all entries liquidated at IEEPA-based rates since February 4, 2026 and file Form 19 protests at CBP field ports within the 180-day liquidation window, citing statutory authority under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(5) and identifying the Oregon Tool en banc and CIT CMO proceedings as the predicate legal vehicles for eventual CIT jurisdiction; (b) join or monitor the In re Section 301 Cases master docket consolidation and ensure that any bellwether selection process is not adverse to client-specific import categories or entry-liquidation dates; (c) for de minimis-channel claimants, confirm that May 2-effective CBP rule did not retroactively affect already-liquidated informal entries and file any post-liquidation protests before the early-August 2026 rolling deadline; (d) brief C-suite clients on the July 9, 2026 reciprocal-tariff snap-back cliff and model worst-case duty exposure assuming failed negotiations with the EU, Japan, and India; and (e) track the USTR Federal Register implementation notice for the U.S.–China Geneva truce, which will govern whether in-transit goods and already-liquidated entries at 145% can benefit from the reduced 30% composite rate — absent explicit retroactive applicability language in the implementing notice, the legal default is prospective-only application.

---