IEEPA Tariff Refunds After Learning Resources: Recovering the Duties and Litigating the Pass-Through

Matthew R. Nicely
M. Scott Barnard
Luke Mathers
Matthew R. Nicely | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
M. Scott Barnard | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Luke Mathers | Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.

Live Video-Broadcast: September 16, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

The refund is only half the fight — the other half is keeping it

The Supreme Court's February 2026 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump invalidated the IEEPA tariffs but left the refund process unsettled. CBP's CAPE system is now live, and the DOJ's pending Federal Circuit appeal threatens refund rights for non-litigants.

Miss a liquidation deadline and refund rights are forfeited. Pick the wrong channel — CAPE declaration, Form 19 protest, or CIT complaint — and recovery stalls. Pass tariff costs through to customers and unjust enrichment, breach of contract, UDAP, and money-had-and-received claims follow. Itemize a surcharge and exposure shifts again.

Attendees leave able to map each client's entries to the appropriate recovery mechanism under the four-zone deadline framework, meet CAPE readiness requirements, and apply a practical framework for auditing client communications, mapping tariff cost treatment, and building early-stage defenses against class certification and damages theories.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Refund Channel Mapping
    How the four-zone liquidation framework left behind by Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump maps each entry — unliquidated, within 80 days, within 180 days, or finally liquidated — to a CAPE declaration, Form 19 protest, or CIT complaint.
  • CAPE Readiness
    How the CAPE mechanics work in practice and what an importer must have in place before submitting a CAPE declaration.
  • Appeal & Stay Risk
    What the DOJ is challenging on appeal at the Federal Circuit, what a stay would mean for finally liquidated entry refunds, and the steps that protect non-litigant refund rights before statutory deadlines expire.
  • Plaintiff Clawback Theories
    How post-Learning Resources plaintiffs are deploying unjust enrichment, breach of contract, UDAP, and money-had-and-received claims to claw back refunds from companies that passed tariff costs through to customers.
  • Early Defense Strategies
    How arbitration clauses, causation attacks, and preemption defenses build early-stage protection against class certification and damages theories.
  • Surcharge & B2B Exposure
    How surcharge disclosure choices affect litigation exposure and how to navigate B2B supply chain disputes over who holds the right to government refunds.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: September 16, 2026

  • 1:00 pm – 3:10 pm Eastern
  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Central
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Mountain
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Matthew R. Nicely, Partner | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Matt Nicely is a partner in Akin’s international trade practice in Washington, D.C., where he focuses on trade remedies, customs, and other trade policies affecting the importation of goods. He represents corporate and government clients in administrative and appellate litigation under the trade remedy laws — antidumping, countervailing duty, safeguards, Section 232, and Section 301 — and appears regularly before the Department of Commerce, Customs and Border Protection, the International Trade Commission, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, as well as in appeals before the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He leads the largest trade lawsuit in history, the pending challenge to Section 301 duties on U.S. imports from China.

  • Education & Credentials

Matt earned his J.D., cum laude, from American University Washington College of Law (1991) and his B.A. from Oberlin College (1987). He is admitted to the bar of the District of Columbia.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Matt is ranked as a Leading Lawyer in International Trade Law by Chambers USA (International Trade Law: Trade Remedies and Trade Policy, 2016–2026), Chambers Global, and The Legal 500 US, which recommends him as a “Leading Lawyer” (2024–2026) and “Leading Partner” (2025). He was named a South Trailblazer by The American Lawyer (2022) and featured in its Litigator of the Week series for pivotal wins on U.S. imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic solar products at the U.S. Court of International Trade. He is also recognized by Who’s Who Legal (Trade & Customs), The Best Lawyers in America (International Trade and Finance), and Super Lawyers (Washington, D.C.).

  • Professional Involvement

Matt recently completed a two-year term as President of the Customs and International Trade Bar Association (2020–2022), after serving as its vice president (2018–2020). He has been an adjunct professor at American University Washington College of Law since 2007, where he co-teaches a course on the U.S. trade regime and helps coach the school’s WTO moot court team, and he has served on the U.S. Court of International Trade Advisory Committee on Rules since 2008 and as co-chair of the Georgetown University Law Center International Trade Update CLE Advisory Board since 2018.

  • Experience

Matt has represented hundreds of clients across the globe and multiple industries in antidumping duty, countervailing duty, and safeguard litigation, and routinely counsels on the business implications of day-to-day trade and customs regulation. His work includes representing associations and companies in solar cell and module trade matters before the agencies and federal courts, defending a coalition of blueberry importers and distributors in a safeguard investigation, and representing the government of Canada in the Softwood Lumber litigation. He also advises on WTO dispute resolution and on export controls, economic sanctions, anticorruption, and antiboycott laws.

 

M. Scott Barnard, Partner | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Scott is an accomplished trial attorney with 30 years of experience litigating high-stakes cases across the country. Recognized for his strategic acumen and unwavering commitment to client success, Scott has earned a distinguished reputation for delivering favorable outcomes in state and federal courts, including the Delaware Court of Chancery. With more than 25 jury trials to his credit, Scott is described by clients to Chambers USA as “a brilliant lawyer” who is “very tenacious, very creative and very good at getting successful outcomes,” “at the top of his game,” and “great in court.” He was also recognized by The American Lawyer’s “Litigator of the Week” column for his landmark win on behalf of Southern Methodist University at the Texas Supreme Court, defeating class action claims for tuition refunds arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Scott brings rigorous analysis and sound judgment to every engagement. Known for his practical, business-focused approach, he partners closely with clients to craft strategies that advance their commercial objectives. His commanding presence in complex negotiations, combined with his ability to cultivate lasting client relationships, reflects a deep commitment to clear communication and results-driven advocacy. Whether shaping litigation strategy or representing clients in high-stakes disputes, Scott delivers a balanced and incisive perspective at every stage. Scott also co-hosts The Business Court Benches, a podcast series that examines developments in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the emerging Texas Business Court, among others, and their implications for corporate governance and complex litigation.

  • Education & Credentials

Scott earned his J.D. cum laude from Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law in 1997 and his B.A. from Trinity University in 1994. He is admitted to practice in Texas.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Scott’s recognitions include Chambers USA, Litigation: Securities (2015–2025); The Legal 500 US, General commercial disputes and Securities litigation: Defense (2020–2025) and Education (2025); D Magazine’s Dallas 500 List of Most Powerful and Influential Business Leaders in Greater Dallas-Fort Worth (2017–2025); Super Lawyers, Securities Litigation, Civil Litigation: Defense, and General Litigation (2012–2023); D Magazine’s Best Lawyers in Dallas (2024–2026); and Best Lawyers in America, Litigation: Securities (2020–2026).

  • Professional Involvement

Scott co-heads Akin’s nationwide complex commercial litigation practice, focusing on corporate and business disputes, fiduciary duty, securities and business tort matters; serves on Akin’s firmwide management committee, guiding the firm’s operations worldwide; and is the partner in charge of the Dallas and Fort Worth offices. He is a member of the Booker T. Washington School for the Performing and Visual Arts Advisory Board and the Opportunity & Inclusion Council, Akin Dallas Office, and previously served as an Assistant District Attorney, Dallas District Attorney’s Office.

  • Experience

Scott defends and advises clients in matters involving complex commercial litigation and arbitration; corporate and business disputes; securities class actions and derivative suits; breach of fiduciary duty and other business tort claims; internal investigations; and corporate governance matters. His representative class action work includes matters in which he secured victories for a private university in both the Texas Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit, establishing that Texas’ Pandemic Liability Protection Act applies to student breach-of-contract class actions seeking tuition and fee refunds after COVID-19 necessitated a shift to online instruction, and represented the largest real estate franchise in 14 class actions across 12 states involving agent profit-sharing contract allegations.

 

Luke Mathers, Member | Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.

Luke is a Member of Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg and leads the firm’s Litigation Practice, resident in the New York office. He contributes to the firm’s representation of clients in court proceedings involving the full range of customs and trade issues.

  • Education & Credentials

Luke earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and holds a B.M. from the University of Michigan. He is admitted to the bar in Illinois (Bar No. 6330094) and to practice before the Court of International Trade, the Northern District of Illinois, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Sixth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Luke leads Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg’s Litigation Practice, and his commentary on the IEEPA tariff refund process has been featured in the trade and national press, including Politico, Women’s Wear Daily, and International Trade Today.

  • Professional Involvement

Luke is a frequent commentator on customs and trade litigation developments, including the refund process that followed Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.

  • Experience

Before joining ST&R, Luke served as a trial attorney in the International Trade Field Office of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, where he handled litigation in customs-related matters including classification, valuation, country of origin, penalties, and forced labor. Earlier in his career, he was a litigation associate at a prominent global law firm and served as a law clerk to a district judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and a circuit judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – Securing IEEPA Tariff Refunds: CIT Procedure, Liquidation Deadlines, and the Government’s Appeal | 1:00pm – 2:00pm ET

This session covers the procedural landscape for recovering IEEPA tariff refunds following the Supreme Court’s February 2026 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, including how CBP’s CAPE system works, how liquidation status determines the correct recovery channel, and how the DOJ’s pending Federal Circuit appeal threatens refund rights for non-litigants. Attorneys will learn to map each client’s entries to the appropriate recovery mechanism — CAPE declaration, Form 19 protest, or CIT complaint — based on liquidation date and finality. Attendees will leave with a working knowledge of the four-zone deadline framework, the CAPE mechanics, and the steps required to preserve refund rights before statutory deadlines expire.

BREAK | 2:00pm – 2:10pm ET

SESSION 2 – Defending Tariff Pass-Through Claims: Refund Clawbacks, Consumer Class Actions, and Surcharge Exposure | 2:10pm – 3:10pm ET

This session examines the wave of consumer and B2B litigation triggered by IEEPA tariff refunds following the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, focusing on the theories plaintiffs are advancing—unjust enrichment, breach of contract, UDAP violations, and money had and received—and the defenses available to companies that passed tariff costs through to customers. Attorneys will analyze how surcharge disclosure choices, contract terms, and arbitration clauses affect litigation exposure, and how to navigate B2B supply chain disputes over who holds the right to government refunds. Attendees will leave with a practical framework for auditing client communications, mapping tariff cost treatment, and building early-stage defenses against class certification and damages theories.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
No MCLE Required

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 General Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via attorney submission.
Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Indiana

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars