Background
Freestyle World, Inc. sued on behalf of importers that paid duties imposed under executive orders invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, Freestyle sought an injunction directing Customs to liquidate or reliquidate affected entries without those duties.
Freestyle moved to certify under USCIT Rule 23(b)(2) a class of all importers of record that paid the challenged duties between February 1, 2025, and February 19, 2026, except entities that had filed separate recovery actions. The government opposed certification, arguing among other things that the motion was untimely, the claims lacked sufficient commonality, the requested relief was not a single indivisible injunction, and the action principally sought individualized monetary relief.
Customs had already processed millions of entries through its automated CAPE program and refunded approximately $126 billion in duties and interest. But certain entries, including finally liquidated entries belonging to importers that had not filed individual suits, remained outside the program, and the court estimated that billions of dollars in unlawfully collected duties could otherwise remain with the Treasury.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of International Trade granted Freestyle’s motion, certified the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(2), appointed Freestyle as class representative, and appointed counsel from Barnes, Richardson & Colburn LLP and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP as class counsel. The court did not yet enter the requested liquidation or reliquidation injunction.
The court held that the certification motion was timely and did not create improper one-way intervention because Freestyle pleaded a class action from the outset, no merits ruling had yet been entered in this case, and membership in a Rule 23(b)(2) class is mandatory rather than subject to opt-in or opt-out choices. It also found numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy satisfied: tens of thousands of importers were potentially included, their claims arose from the same unlawful tariff policy, and all sought liquidation or reliquidation without IEEPA duties.
Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was appropriate because a single injunction directing Customs to liquidate or reliquidate covered entries would provide classwide relief. Although refunds would differ by importer, the court concluded that they would be incidental to the injunction because Customs’ computers could calculate them mechanically from existing entry and payment records, without individualized judicial proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- The certified class covers importers of record that paid duties under the challenged tariff orders from February 1, 2025, through February 19, 2026, but excludes entities that separately sued to recover those payments.
- Different refund amounts did not defeat commonality or Rule 23(b)(2) certification because the requested liquidation or reliquidation order would apply uniformly and refund calculations would be automated.
- The ruling certifies the class and appoints its representative and counsel; it does not itself grant the ultimate injunction or order refunds.
Why It Matters
The decision creates a classwide procedural vehicle for importers—particularly smaller businesses that did not file individual actions—to pursue relief from unlawfully collected IEEPA duties. It also recognizes that mandatory injunctive-class treatment may be available when monetary payments follow automatically from uniform equitable relief rather than requiring individualized adjudication.
Certification potentially brings within one action tens of thousands of importers and entries not fully addressed through individual litigation or voluntary use of Customs’ CAPE system. Whether and on what terms Customs must liquidate or reliquidate all covered entries remains to be resolved in subsequent proceedings.