On October 8, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) granted Plaintiff Freestyle World, Inc.’s (“Freestyle World”) motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel.  The relief sought by Freestyle World, on behalf of itself and the proposed class, is an injunction directing liquidation or reliquidation of entries without regard to unlawfully imposed International Emergency Economic Act (“IEEPA”) duties.

Prerequisites For Class Certification

The CIT determined that the plaintiff class met the four key pre-requisites for class certification.

1. Numerosity: The CIT held that given the proposed class includes “some tens of thousands of importers, it satisfies the numerosity requirement.”  As the CIT explained, the proposed class “would include the portion of those 330,000 importers of record who paid IEEPA {duties}.”

• Commonality: The CIT found that commonality requires a common question among all plaintiffs and was met because the common question is whether importers’ entries should be reliquidated without IEEPA duties.  Thus, the fact that the amount of refunds may be different is irrelevant to commonality because “the calculation of monetary relief will be mechanical, formulaic, a task” that does not require any individualized action from the CIT as demonstrated by the CAPE system. 

• Typicality: The CIT held that typicality had been met because Freestyle World’s and the proposed class’s claims arise from the same events—the Government’s unlawful imposition and collection of IEEPA duties.  Thus, Freestyle World’s claim was representative of the proposed class.

• Adequacy: The CIT explained that adequacy is satisfied where the class representative “suffered the same injury as the other proposed class members and there is no conflict of interest that would prevent them from serving as class representatives.”  Here, because Freestyle World suffered the same injury, i.e. paid unlawful IEEPA duties and because Freestyle World is not antagonistic to proposed class members, the CIT held that the adequacy prerequisite had been met. 

What This Means for Importers

As a result of the CIT’s decision, all importers who have not separately filed an action to recover IEEPA duties payments will be bound by resolution of this case, including if the case is settled.  Importers should assess the amount of IEEPA refunds they are owed and determine if filing a separate action is warranted.  While the proposed relief, if granted, would entitle class members to recover IEEPA duties paid on all entries, including finally liquidated entries, any potential settlement may lessen that amount. 

The Husch Blackwell International Trade and Supply Chain team will continue to monitor this and provide updates as they become available.  If you have any questions or concerns, please contact your Husch Blackwell attorney.