VOS Selections v. Trump FAQs

What did the government announce on Feb. 20?

On Feb. 20, the Administration issued an order directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to begin stopping the collection of the tariffs that were struck down by the courts.

This directive implements the court’s ruling invalidating the tariff scheme and instructs CBP to wind down ongoing collection.

Stopping future collection is important. But the next—and most consequential—issue is refunds.

What did the Court of International Trade decide in May?

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) unanimously granted a permanent injunction against the tariffs, holding that the Administration lacked authority to impose them.

The permanent injunction barred enforcement of the tariffs and necessarily contemplated unwinding unlawful collections.

Why weren’t the tariffs immediately halted after that ruling?

Immediately after the CIT issued its permanent injunction, the government sought a stay pending appeal.

The government argued there would be “no harm” in allowing tariff collection to continue because:

• The government could refund the money if it ultimately lost; and
• Interest would be paid where required.

In short, the government assured the court that businesses would be made whole.

The stay was granted based on those representations.

Why didn’t the Supreme Court say anything about refunds?

The Supreme Court addressed the legality of the tariffs—not the administrative mechanics of repayment.

Once a tariff is declared unlawful, the government cannot retain funds collected under that invalid authority. Refunds flow from the invalidation itself.

Moreover, the government had already represented in the lower courts that refunds—with interest—would cure any harm. There was no separate controversy requiring Supreme Court instruction on that point.

What did the government promise regarding refunds?

The government explicitly argued that if the tariffs were held unlawful, it would repay the money—with interest.

That representation was central to its claim that businesses were not suffering irreparable harm while the case was on appeal.

Now that the tariffs have been invalidated, those assurances matter.

Are refunds automatic?

Refunds should be prompt and efficient.

The government’s litigation position depended on businesses being made whole. That means:

• Full repayment
• Statutory interest
• A clear administrative pathway

Unnecessary delay would contradict the government’s prior representations to the courts.

Who receives the refunds?

Refunds go to American businesses that paid the tariffs at the border.

These payments do not go to foreign governments.

In many cases, affected companies are small and mid-sized U.S. businesses. Refunded capital stays in the United States—supporting payroll, inventory, expansion, and in some cases lower consumer prices.

What about “de minimis” tariffs?

The ruling does not affect the Administration’s rescission of the de minimis exemption.

That separate policy decision remains in effect and was not disturbed by the invalidation of the broader tariff scheme.

Why is the Supreme Court case sometimes referred to as “Learning Resources” if that case was dismissed?

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump

This is a matter of docket timing—not substance.

Learning Resources attempted to file a petition for certiorari before judgment and therefore received an earlier docket number beginning with “24,” reflecting the 2024–2025 Supreme Court term.

V.O.S. Selections proceeded through the full appellate process. As a result, its petition was docketed in the following Supreme Court term and received a number beginning with “25.”

When cases are consolidated or referenced together, the Court often lists the earlier docket first as a matter of administrative convention.

However:

• The Learning Resources case was dismissed.
• There was no ruling on the merits in that case.
• The decision invalidating the tariffs was issued in V.O.S. Selections.

The defeat of the unlawful tariffs resulted from the fully litigated appellate process in V.O.S. Selections—not from the dismissed petition in Learning Resources.

What is Section 122?

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the President to impose temporary tariffs in response to balance-of-payments concerns.

Unlike the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—which was never intended to serve as a tariff statute—Section 122 expressly authorizes tariffs under certain conditions.

How is Section 122 different from IEEPA?

IEEPA:

• Does not mention tariffs;
• Was not designed as a tariff statute;
• Contains no built-in tariff limits.

Section 122 includes guardrails:

• Tariffs are capped at 15%;
• They may last no longer than 150 days;
• Extension requires congressional action;
• Reporting and justification mechanisms are built into the statute.

Section 122 contains limits. IEEPA did not.

Will you challenge tariffs imposed under Section 122?

We are carefully evaluating any action taken under Section 122.

Because it is an actual tariff statute, the legal analysis differs from the IEEPA litigation.

Any review would consider:

• Whether statutory prerequisites are satisfied;
• Whether procedural requirements are followed;
• Whether the 15% and 150-day limits are respected;
• Whether constitutional constraints remain intact.

It would be premature to comment further until formal implementation details are announced.

What should businesses be doing right now?

Preserve documentation.

Maintain complete records of:

• Entries subject to the invalidated tariffs
• Amounts paid
• Entry summaries
• Broker communications

Monitor CBP guidance.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Watch for formal instructions regarding refund procedures, interest calculations, and timelines.

Coordinate with brokers and trade counsel.

Ensure affected entries are tracked and that any required refund procedures are properly followed.

Plan cash flow carefully.

Even if refunds are owed, administrative processing may take time. Avoid assuming immediate repayment.

Monitor Section 122 developments.

If tariffs are imposed under Section 122, confirm compliance with the 15% cap and 150-day limit, and track any congressional action.

Should businesses file lawsuits now?

Businesses should first observe how the refund process is implemented.

If the government honors its representations and processes refunds efficiently, litigation may not be necessary. If it does not, legal options can be evaluated.

Bottom Line

• The IEEPA tariffs were unlawful.
• The government promised refunds with interest.
• Those promises must now be honored.
• Section 122 is a separate statute with built-in limits.
• Businesses should remain informed, organized, and prepared.