Sports brands can claim tariff refunds, court rules, but US government fights back

Every sporting goods company that paid tariffs under President Trump’s emergency trade powers is now eligible for a refund, whether or not it ever went to court. A landmark ruling issued March 4 established that universal right — and the government wasted no time challenging it.

The ruling that set the process in motion

On Feb. 20, 2026, t issued a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – a statute historically used for targeted national security sanctions – does not authorise the president to impose broad import tariffs. The ruling invalidated two categories of levies: the “Trafficking and Immigration Tariffs”, introduced in February 2025 on goods from China, Canada and Mexico, and the “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs, imposed in April 2025 on virtually all US trading partners.

The majority opinion did not specify whether or how refunds would be issued. The case was remanded to the US Court of International Trade (CIT) – the specialised federal court that handles import disputes – to determine next steps. That silence set the stage for a new procedural battleground.

March 4: The order that changed the calculus

The most significant development in the post-ruling period came on March 4, 2026, when Judge Richard K. Eaton of the CIT issued a three-page order in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States that substantially broadens the scope of potential relief.

The order does three things. First, it declares that all importers who paid IEEPA duties - including those who never filed individual court actions - are entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court’s Learning Resources decision. Second, it directs Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate all pending entries without applying IEEPA duty rates, effectively halting further collection on in-transit goods. Third, it consolidates all IEEPA-related refund claims before a single judge - Eaton himself – to ensure consistent handling across more than 2,000 filed cases.

The government has signaled it will appeal the March 4 order quickly, meaning the universal eligibility it established is not yet final.

The queue at the Court of International Trade: who filed and when

Importers began rushing to the CIT in late 2025, months before the Supreme Court ruled, to lock in refund rights. Starting in November, hundreds filed “protective” cases because they feared liquidation – Customs’ final sign-off on duties, typically about 314 days after entry – would cut off later claims.

By early 2026, more than 2,000 complaints had been filed, covering over 2,500 companies.

The March 4 order may make that filing race less important by making eligibility universal. Still, companies with active CIT cases have an edge: they are already in court, jurisdiction is established, and they may be first in line if the court creates a priority refund process.

Sporting goods, brands and retailers: a who’s who among those seeking refunds.

The sporting goods and fitness sector is well represented among plaintiffs. The table below reflects confirmed filings based on CIT records, including docket numbers and lead counsel, verified as of March 6, 2026.

Source: US Court of International Trade public records; Journal Sentinel; Retail Dive. Docket numbers confirmed where available from court filings. Cases filed after Dec. 23, 2025 were automatically stayed under CIT Administrative Order 25-02. Status reflects position as of March 6, 2026.

Peloton filed one of the more detailed complaints on record. In its Jan. 7 filing, the company said it had paid IEEPA duties since February 2025, with the earliest liquidated entries dating to May 2025 for its Precor subsidiary. On Holding and Skechers filed within days of the Supreme Court ruling. Allbirds, still working through a profitability turnaround, moved fast enough that a post-ruling refund could be material to its balance sheet.

What could delay - or derail - refunds

The government’s appeal of the March 4 order is the next near-term inflection point. Even if the appeal fails, securing refunds will still be a work-intensive exercise: each import transaction is treated as a separate customs entry, and claims must be supported by complete paperwork for every entry.

Mathew Mermigousis, national practice leader for customs and international trade services at advisory firm BDO, told Retail Dive that assembling that record is “the huge legwork” – an obstacle for companies that filed protective actions early and for those now counting on the Eaton order’s broader eligibility.

The wider tariff backdrop is also shifting. Within hours of the Supreme Court’s Feb. 20 ruling, President Trump signed a proclamation imposing a new 10 percent global surcharge under separate authority. The measure took effect Feb. 24 and is scheduled to run through July 24, 2026, unless Congress extends it. Trump has since said the rate could rise to 15 percent.

Why the March 4 order may change the playbook for European brands

For European-headquartered brands importing into the US, the March 4 order changes the eligibility math by removing the need for a protective lawsuit as a condition of relief. Early filers – many of whom sued in November or December 2025 – may still benefit from being procedurally ahead if the court adopts a sequencing or priority approach.

The more immediate operational task, however, is documentation. For companies that did not file, building entry-by-entry support now becomes the gating item for any recovery.

Another potential hurdle is emerging in policy discussions. Some Democratic senators, and at least one draft legislative approach, have floated a requirement that brands receiving IEEPA refunds show the savings were passed on to consumers rather than retained as margin. For companies such as Allbirds and On, which baked tariff costs into 2025 pricing and margin plans, proving pass-through could add meaningful accounting complexity – and reduce the net value of any refund.

The US Court of International Trade is expected to lay out a formal claims-management framework in the coming weeks. Whether the government’s appeal slows that process – or pushes the dispute into another round of appellate litigation before any funds move – will shape recovery timelines that now extend into 2027.