The legal fight over President Trump’s tariffs has produced two major defeats for the administration so far: a 6–3 Supreme Court ruling in February 2026 striking down the IEEPA tariffs, and a Court of International Trade ruling in May 2026 striking down the Section 122 replacement tariffs (now stayed on appeal). Thousands of Trump tariff lawsuits are now working through the courts, and importers who paid duties can file refund claims through a Customs and Border Protection portal while consumers have begun suing companies that kept tariff-driven price hikes in place.
The Supreme Court Ruling on the IEEPA Tariffs
In 2025, President Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose tariffs on imports from more than 100 countries. The first wave hit Canada, Mexico, and China at 10 to 25 percent under a declared emergency tied to drug trafficking. A second round announced on April 2, 2025 — the “Liberation Day” tariffs — set a 10 percent baseline on nearly all imports with higher rates for specific countries, citing the U.S. trade deficit as an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
Two lawsuits moved quickly. The Liberty Justice Center filed V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump in the U.S. Court of International Trade on April 14, 2025, representing five small businesses: a New York wine importer, a Pennsylvania fishing tackle retailer, a Utah manufacturer, a Virginia electronics company, and a Vermont cycling brand. Learning Resources, Inc. and hand2mind, Inc. filed a parallel case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which issued a preliminary injunction against the tariffs. Both cases reached the Supreme Court on consolidated review.
On February 20, 2026, the Court ruled 6–3 that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.1Liberty Justice Center. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate importation” during an emergency does not include the power to tax.2Supreme Court of the United States. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump The Court applied the major questions doctrine, reasoning that an assertion of authority with such “economic and political significance” required clear congressional language that IEEPA lacks. Roberts noted that no president in the statute’s 50-year history had ever used it to impose tariffs.
Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson concurred on statutory grounds. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, arguing that “regulate importation” has historically included tariffs.3PwC. US Supreme Court Invalidates IEEPA Tariffs The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment in V.O.S. Selections and vacated the D.C. ruling in Learning Resources, holding that the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff challenges.2Supreme Court of the United States. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
The Section 122 Replacement Tariffs and the 24-State Challenge
The same day the Supreme Court ruled, President Trump signed Proclamation 11012 imposing a 10 percent global import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits temporary surcharges of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days to address “fundamental international payments problems.”4Federal Register. Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge To Address Fundamental International Payments Problems The surcharge took effect February 24, 2026 and was set to run through July 24, 2026. The proclamation exempted critical minerals, energy, certain agricultural goods, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, passenger vehicles, goods already covered by Section 232 steel and aluminum duties, and goods qualifying under the USMCA.
On March 5, 2026, 24 states filed State of Oregon, et al. v. Trump, et al. in the Court of International Trade.5Oregon Department of Justice. AG Rayfield Leads Multistate Lawsuit Against Trump Over New Illegal Tariffs Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led the coalition, which included the attorneys general of Arizona, California, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.6New York Attorney General. Attorney General James Leads Lawsuit To Stop Trump Administration’s Latest Illegal Tariffs
The states argued the president conflated the trade deficit with the broader balance of payments, which includes capital and financial accounts that currently offset the trade deficit.7New York Attorney General. State of Oregon et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al. Complaint They also alleged the proclamation violated Section 122’s requirements of nondiscriminatory treatment and “broad and uniform application” by carving out more than 80 pages of product exceptions, and that it usurped Congress’s Article I taxing power.8Jurist. Coalition of 24 States Sue Over Trump’s Section 122 Tariffs
Private plaintiffs filed a parallel suit, Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. Trump, brought by Burlap & Barrel, a New York spice importer sourcing from at least 22 countries, and Basic Fun, a Florida toy company that imports from China.9Liberty Justice Center. Burlap and Barrel v. Trump Complaint
The Trade Court’s May 2026 Ruling and the Federal Circuit Stay
On May 7, 2026, a three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade ruled 2–1 that the Section 122 tariffs were unlawful. Judges Mark Barnett and Claire Kelly found the proclamation “invalid, and the tariffs imposed on Plaintiffs are unauthorized by law.”10Politico. Trade Court Rules Trump’s Replacement Tariffs Illegal The majority held that “balance-of-payments deficits” is a technical term rooted in the Bretton Woods era of fixed exchange rates, and that the administration improperly equated modern trade and current account deficits with the statutory concept.11U.S. Court of International Trade. Slip Op. 26-47 The majority also warned that a broader reading would raise nondelegation concerns by letting the president target “virtually any macroeconomic imbalance.”12Roll Call. US Trade Court Strikes Down Trump’s Tariff Move
Judge Timothy Stanceu dissented, arguing the statute contains no express definition limiting the term, that Congress had deliberately removed earlier draft language mandating particular measurements, and that courts should not second-guess the president’s factual findings on whether statutory conditions were met.11U.S. Court of International Trade. Slip Op. 26-47
The court issued a permanent injunction, but only for the three plaintiffs it found had standing as direct importers: the State of Washington, Burlap & Barrel, and Basic Fun. The Democratic state attorneys general were dismissed for lack of standing because they were not themselves importers of tariffed goods.13CNN. Tariff Case Ten Percent Trump Court International Trade For all other importers, the tariffs stayed in effect pending appeal.
On June 11, 2026, the Federal Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay the injunction while the appeal proceeds, finding the administration had shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.14International Trade Today. CAFC Finds US Likely to Succeed in Section 122 Appeal, Issues Stay The appeals court noted that legislative history called into question the trade court’s narrow definition and that the statute’s 15 percent cap and 150-day limit may be guardrail enough to survive a nondelegation challenge.15International Trade Insights. Federal Circuit Stays Section 122 Tariff Injunction, Signaling Skepticism of CIT’s Narrow Statutory Reading The court also credited the government’s argument that plaintiffs could recover any improperly collected duties with interest if they ultimately win.
The Section 122 tariffs are set to expire on July 24, 2026 by their own terms. The Federal Circuit appeal remains pending.
How Importers Can Claim Refunds
Separate from the Section 122 fight, a massive refund process is underway for the IEEPA tariffs the Supreme Court struck down. More than 2,000 companies filed suit in the Court of International Trade seeking to recover duties paid.16SCOTUSblog. A Brewing Tariff Refund Battle On March 4, 2026, a CIT judge ordered Customs and Border Protection to process refunds for all importers, not only the named plaintiffs. The government disputed the order and argued it amounted to a prohibited universal injunction, appealing to the Federal Circuit in June 2026.
CBP launched an online refund portal on April 20, 2026 called CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries), where importers can submit reimbursement claims.17Liberty Justice Center. Where the Refund Process Stands In the first week, importers submitted over 75,000 declarations covering more than 13 million entries, of which about 11 million passed validation and were accepted for processing. The first refund payments were scheduled for May 11, 2026, with CBP estimating a 60-to-90-day processing timeline for approved claims.18U.S. Customs and Border Protection. IEEPA Duty Refunds
The scale is enormous. CBP faces approximately $166 billion in refunds across 53 million entries filed by more than 330,000 importers, with interest costs growing by roughly $650 million per month.19King & Spalding. IEEPA Refund Process Has Begun and the New Temporary 10% Tariffs Struck Down As of late April 2026, about 56,500 importers were registered and eligible for refunds totaling $127 billion.20NBC Chicago. Businesses Can Now Claim Refunds for Trump Tariffs Ruled Illegal By late May, CBP had accepted $85 billion in potential or certified applications and paid out $21 billion.21J.P. Morgan. US Tariffs Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled the administration would wait for lower courts to sort out the process, which is expected to take months or years.16SCOTUSblog. A Brewing Tariff Refund Battle
Refunds in this process go to the importer of record who paid the duty, not to downstream buyers. That distinction has created a second front of litigation.
Consumer Class Actions Over Tariff Price Hikes
Consumers have begun suing companies that raised prices to pass tariff costs along and then kept those prices up after the tariffs fell. On February 26, 2026, Nathan Ward filed Ward v. EssilorLuxottica S.A. in the Eastern District of New York, alleging the eyewear company’s retention of tariff-related price increases after the tariffs were struck down was unjust enrichment.22Bloomberg Law. Ward v. EssilorLuxottica Complaint The complaint cited EssilorLuxottica’s own admission of “mid-single digit” price increases beginning in early 2025 to cover tariff costs. Similar suits have been filed against Costco and shipping companies including FedEx and UPS.20NBC Chicago. Businesses Can Now Claim Refunds for Trump Tariffs Ruled Illegal
These cases are in early stages, with no court having ruled on the merits. Defendants are expected to argue consumers lack standing, that injuries are speculative, and to invoke arbitration clauses, class-action waivers, and the voluntary payment doctrine. FedEx has said it intends to return tariff refunds to its customers once it receives them from CBP.
What’s Coming Next: Section 301 and Section 232
The administration has moved to replace IEEPA and Section 122 authority with other statutes, which will likely drive the next round of lawsuits. On March 11 and 12, 2026, the U.S. Trade Representative opened 60 Section 301 investigations targeting countries the administration says have failed to ban or enforce bans on goods produced with forced labor. The targets include China, Japan, South Korea, the European Union, the United Kingdom, India, and Brazil, among others.23Office of the United States Trade Representative. USTR Makes Findings and Proposes Action in 60 Section 301 Investigations
On June 2, 2026, the USTR found all 60 economies’ practices “unreasonable and actionable” and proposed additional duties of 10 to 12.5 percent on products from those countries. Public hearings on the proposed tariffs are scheduled to begin on July 7, 2026.24Federal Register. Notice of Determinations and Request for Comments Concerning Actions in Section 301 Investigations Section 301, unlike Section 122, has no cap on tariff rate or duration. The administration has also signaled plans for new Section 232 national security investigations into pharmaceuticals, batteries, chemicals, critical minerals, and telecommunications equipment.25Freshfields. Post-IEEPA Tariff Landscape: New Authorities and the Path to Refunds Whether those replacement tariffs face the same fate as IEEPA and Section 122 will depend on how courts read the limits Congress built into each statute.