Two months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump acted illegally when he used a 1977 federal law to impose a series of sweeping global tariffs on imported goods.
The court’s decision has unleashed a new fight—for refunds. An estimated $166 billion, plus interest, is at stake. Thousands of businesses have sued the government, an untested federal claims program is about to launch, and plaintiffs’ attorneys are now aiming at companies to force them to repay consumers for their costs.
For many businesses, particularly smaller enterprises, this is a bet-the-company fight. A double whammy of tariff payments and a tough economy has dried up cash flow. According to news accounts, some are even using potential tariff refunds as collateral for bank loans to stay afloat.
They may be waiting for their money for quite some time, however. “Even in the best-case scenario, a refund program of such scale is going to be messy and slow,” The Wall Street Journal noted. That, in turn, could prompt thousands more businesses to take to the courts to get their money back.
What the Court Did
Under 1977’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the president has broad authority to regulate commerce, freeze assets, and impose sanctions in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security, foreign policy, or the economy originating outside the United States.
As Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. noted in his majority opinion, Trump— shortly after returning to office in January 2025—declared that an influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China, and “large and persistent” trade deficits threatened the United States. Trump declared a national emergency, deeming the threats “unusual and extraordinary,” and invoking his authority under IEEPA to respond.
Trump imposed a 25% tariff on most Canadian and Mexican imports and a 10% duty on most Chinese imports. He also imposed a duty “on all imports from all trading partners” of at least 10%, with dozens of nations facing higher rates. In the months that followed, Trump issued several increases, reductions, and other modifications to the tariffs, Roberts said.
Businesses sued, and the court, in a 6-3 decision on Feb. 20, said the IEEPA did not authorize the president to issue tariffs that were, in the words of one appeals court, “unbounded in scope, amount, and duration.”
After the Decision
The court’s decision left questions about refunds to the lower courts, a fact highlighted by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his dissent in the case. The court said “nothing…about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars collected from importers.” He wrote that “the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’”
In March, the U.S. Court of International Trade weighed in. Judge Richard Eaton, who is handling all of the tariff-related suits at the court, ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection to recalculate importers’ duties minus the IEEPA tariffs. This would likely result in refunds.
But as Bloomberg reported, the wording of the order was broad, and some lawyers were unsure it would “cover all of the tariffs that hundreds of thousands of importers paid on millions of goods that entered the U.S. under Trump’s use of the emergency powers law.”
The administration also complained that a recalculation effort would be “nearly impossible,” Bloomberg said, and asked the court to delay the order while it built a new web portal to process refunds. Eaton agreed. The portal is expected to launch April 20.
Barrage of Suits
According to government estimates, as many as 330,000 importers paid the IEEPA tariffs. That covers more than 53 million instances of products entering the country. So far, only a fraction of those importers—roughly 3,000 companies—has filed suit.
Many companies have chosen to seek refunds through administrative channels. Still more appear to be taking a wait-and-see approach, holding off on a legal response until the courts, the administration, and potentially Congress, have charted a clearer path.
Nonetheless, 3,000 is still a barrage of cases, particularly for the Court of International Trade. In 2024, the court reported just 252 case filings.
Several of the companies filing refund-related claims are large, well-known brands with significant legal budgets. They represent an array of industries and regions and include consumer product makers ranging from Goodyear Tires to Gorilla Glue, fashion houses like Prada and Tom Ford, food brands such as Dole and Bumble Bee, aluminum producer Alcoa, subsidiaries of Toyota, Kawasaki motorcycles, among a host of others.
As Politico wrote in March, “Businesses are giving up hope the Trump administration will quickly issue refunds...Now they’re lawyering up and preparing for a drawn-out legal fight.”
‘Rush of Work’ for Firms
The list of law firms handling cases is expansive as well. In high demand from importers are firms with international trade expertise and deep experience navigating the trade court and federal agencies involved in the tariffs process.
According to an analysis by Bloomberg, at least 12 of the 30 largest U.S. law firms by revenue have filed at least one refund case on behalf of clients. “The cases show how one of Trump’s signature policies has generated a rush of work for many of the biggest law firms,” Bloomberg said.
Several firms ranked by Best Law Firms for their international trade and finance practices are among those leading cases. Crowell & Moring, for instance, has filed more than 200 cases, according to multiple news reports. Sidley Austin has brought as many as 160 suits for clients including Nippon Steel Corp., Heineken USA Inc., Lululemon, J. Crew, Chico’s Retail Services, and Lane Bryant, Bloomberg reported.
Other Best Law Firms-ranked firms, such as Polsinelli, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, Holland & Knight, and Hogan Lovells, also have cases, according to Law.com. Click here for a full list of 96 firms ranked by Best Law Firms for their international trade and finance practices.
Portal Performance
How far those cases will proceed may depend on how well U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement’s online portal performs.
A recent review by Bloomberg of case filings found that companies do not appear overly confident. More than 1,000 new cases were filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade since March 1. “That’s roughly a third of the more than 3,000 tariff lawsuits brought over the past year,” Bloomberg noted.
For smaller businesses with simpler claims, the online system may be able to help them avoid expensive litigation to obtain a refund. At least that is the hope of organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has praised Customs and Border Enforcement’s short-term plans for repaying companies. The Chamber, according to news accounts, has called the proposal “constructive and practical.”
Many trade lawyers are not convinced. As Bloomberg reported, they worry that the government may decide to exclude certain types of duties or challenge Eaton’s authority to oversee the process. “It all boils down to uncertainty,” one trade lawyer said to Bloomberg. By filing suit, “you have a seat at the table.”
Consumers Strike Back
Businesses may be suing the government, but they are facing a growing litigation threat of their own from plaintiffs’ attorneys who want to see refunds passed along to consumers.
According to Law.com, just hours after the Supreme Court issued its tariffs decision, South Carolina-based personal injury firm Poulin Willey Anastopoulo sued FedEx Corp. to force it to return money to customers. Not long after, Morgan & Morgan, nationally ranked by Best Law Firms for mass tort litigation and plaintiffs class actions, filed its own case against FedEx.
Seattle-based Emery Reddy and three other firms joined the fray in March, filing a class action against Washington-based Costco to issue refunds to customers who paid tariffs on imported goods. Costco has sued the government to recoup the tariffs it paid.
Among the other companies targeted is athletic clothing maker Lululemon, which is facing a class action in Michigan. Like the other cases, the company is accused of potential double-dipping—taking money from consumers and, when a refund occurs, accepting money from the government.
“Lululemon has made no commitment to return any portion of its anticipated tariff refunds to the consumers who ultimately bore those costs,” the complaint alleges. The case was brought by Mantese Honigman.
Other Tariff Battles
Future battles over tariff refunds are shaping up as well.
On April 10, the U.S. trade court heard arguments in a series of suits brought by small businesses and 24 states that accuse Trump of improperly using a 1974 federal trade law to justify tariffs issued in the wake of the Supreme Court’s February decision.
The 1974 law allows import duties for up to 150 days to address “balance of payments deficits” or to halt the depreciation of the dollar.
The court, according to news reports, closely questioned Trump administration officials about their definition of balance of payments. Lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice argued that the trade deficit translated into a serious international payments problem for the country. Opponents, however, said the 1974 law addresses an economic problem from a bygone era and is simply being used as a ruse to sidestep the Supreme Court’s decision.
It is not yet clear when the Court of International Trade will issue its ruling. But if it rules against Trump, expect more refund-related litigation to follow.
---
David L. Brown is a legal affairs writer and consultant, who has served as head of editorial at ALM Media, editor-in-chief of The National Law Journal and Legal Times, and executive editor of The American Lawyer. He consults on thought leadership strategy and creates in-depth content for legal industry clients and works closely with Best Law Firms as senior content consultant.