The Trump tariff lawsuits ended in a decisive loss for the administration at the Supreme Court on February 20, 2026, when a 6–3 majority held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the President authority to impose tariffs.1Supreme Court of the United States. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 That ruling wiped out the “Liberation Day” tariffs and set in motion a $166 billion refund process. It did not end the tariff fight. Within hours the administration invoked a different statute, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and a second wave of lawsuits followed. As of mid-2026, that second round remains unresolved and importers are still paying a 10 percent surcharge at the border.
The Tariffs That Triggered the Lawsuits
On April 2, 2025, President Trump declared a national emergency based on trade deficits and, invoking IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act, imposed a baseline 10 percent tariff on nearly all U.S. imports effective April 5.2The White House. Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff Four days later, higher “reciprocal” rates of 10 to 50 percent took effect on 57 named countries. The European Union faced 20 percent, Vietnam 46 percent, Cambodia 49 percent, and Lesotho the highest at 50 percent.3Center for Strategic and International Studies. Liberation Day Tariffs Explained Steel, aluminum, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, and energy were carved out, and USMCA-compliant goods got preferential treatment. After market turmoil, the country-specific rates were rolled back to 10 percent for a 90-day negotiating window.4The Hill. Trump Sued Over Liberation Day Tariffs
No prior President had ever used IEEPA to impose tariffs in the statute’s 50-year history. That novelty became the central legal question.
Who Sued
Challenges came within days. On April 3, 2025, the New Civil Liberties Alliance sued on behalf of Simplified, a Florida planner company importing from China.5CNN. Small Businesses File Trump Tariffs Lawsuit On April 14, the Liberty Justice Center filed what became the lead case, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, in the U.S. Court of International Trade on behalf of five owner-operated businesses: V.O.S. Selections (a New York wine importer), FishUSA, Genova Pipe, MicroKits LLC, and Terry Precision Cycling. They argued that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate” imports does not include the power to tax, that trade deficits are not the “unusual and extraordinary threat” IEEPA requires, and that tariff-setting belongs to Congress under the Constitution.6Liberty Justice Center. V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trump
California sued on April 16, 2025, becoming the first state to challenge the tariffs. A week later, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led a 12-state coalition (Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont) in a separate CIT case.7Oregon Capital Chronicle. Oregon Attorney General Leads Suit Against Trump Administration to Block Tariffs Princess Awesome LLC led another suit on behalf of 11 small importing businesses, including toy stores and board game publishers. A parallel case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
How the Courts Ruled
The Court of International Trade moved quickly. On May 28, 2025, a CIT panel granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in both V.O.S. Selections and the Oregon-led state case, holding that IEEPA does not give the President “unbounded authority” to impose “unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world.”8U.S. Court of International Trade. V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 25-66 The next day, the D.C. District Court reached the same conclusion in Learning Resources. The Federal Circuit stayed the CIT injunction on June 10, so Customs and Border Protection kept collecting tariffs while the appeal proceeded.9International Trade Insights. Federal Circuit Continues Stay on Permanent Injunction On August 29, 2025, the full Federal Circuit ruled 7–4 that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs.10U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trump, No. 2025-1812
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 9, 2025, consolidating the two cases, and heard argument on November 5, 2025.11SCOTUSblog. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump The 6–3 decision came down on February 20, 2026. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, held that the power to impose tariffs is a “branch of the taxing power” that the Constitution assigns exclusively to Congress, and that the framers “vested no part of that taxing power in the executive branch.”1Supreme Court of the United States. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 The word “regulate” in IEEPA does not include the power to tax, and if Congress had meant to delegate that “extraordinary power,” it would have said so, as it did in other trade statutes.
Roberts, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, also relied on the major questions doctrine, calling the administration’s claimed authority a “transformative expansion” of power over a “core congressional power of the purse.” Justice Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, concurred in the judgment but would have decided the case on ordinary statutory grounds. Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissented. The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in V.O.S. Selections and vacated the D.C. District Court judgment in Learning Resources, holding that the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff challenges.12Legal Information Institute. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287
Refunds on $166 Billion in Collected Tariffs
The ruling put roughly $166 billion of collected tariffs in play. On March 4, 2026, CIT Judge Richard Eaton ordered CBP to refund the unlawfully collected IEEPA tariffs to all importers, not only those who had sued. The court held that the Supreme Court’s ban on universal injunctions in Trump v. CASA, Inc. did not apply to the CIT, given its unique statutory role and exclusive jurisdiction over tariff legality.13Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. CASA Inc., 606 U.S. 831
The government fought the scope of that order. Its request for a stay was denied, and on June 3, 2026, the Department of Justice appealed to the Federal Circuit to challenge the CIT’s authority to order universal refunds. CBP opened the first phase of its refund system, called the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries system, on April 20, 2026.14U.S. Customs and Border Protection. IEEPA Duty Refunds
Testimony from CBP’s Executive Assistant Commissioner for Trade at a June 9, 2026 hearing laid out the scale. The $166 billion in collections came from 53 million entries by more than 330,000 importers. Roughly $90 billion in claims had been accepted, about $23 billion had been approved and transmitted, and CBP expected to disburse more than $40 billion by the end of June 2026. Interest on outstanding refunds was accruing at about $650 million per month.15Holland & Knight. IEEPA Tariff Refund Update – Government Appeals
The main open dispute involves “finally liquidated” entries, meaning those processed more than 80 days before the refund period began. The government’s exposure on those entries is estimated at more than $30 billion, and the administration maintains that refunds for finally liquidated entries should go only to importers who filed individual lawsuits. Around 4,000 importers had filed such suits by mid-2026.
The Section 122 Tariffs Still Being Collected
The same day the Supreme Court ruled, President Trump signed a new proclamation invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary import surcharges to address “fundamental international payments problems.” A 10 percent tariff took effect on February 24, 2026, capped by statute at 15 percent and scheduled to last 150 days unless Congress acts.16The White House. Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge
New lawsuits followed. On March 5, 2026, California led a multistate coalition challenging the Section 122 tariffs at the CIT.17Office of the Governor of California. California Sues Trump Over His Unlawful Use of Tariffs Again Liberty Justice Center brought a separate case for Burlap and Barrel, a New York spice importer, and Basic Fun, a Florida toy company.18Liberty Justice Center. Burlap and Barrel Inc. v. Trump
On May 7, 2026, a CIT panel ruled 2–1 that the Section 122 tariffs were “unlawful,” “invalid,” and “unauthorized by law,” finding that the balance-of-payments conditions the statute requires were not met.19American Society of International Law. The U.S. Court of International Trade Invalidates Trump’s 10% Global Tariff But relief was limited to three parties with direct-importer standing: Burlap and Barrel, Basic Fun, and the State of Washington (through the University of Washington). Claims by 23 other states were dismissed for lack of standing.20U.S. Court of International Trade. State of Oregon v. United States, Slip Op. 26-47
The government appealed the next day. On May 12, 2026, the Federal Circuit granted an immediate stay of the injunction, and on June 11, 2026, it formally granted a stay pending appeal, indicating the administration was “likely to succeed” in overturning the CIT.21Inside U.S. Trade. Appeals Court Says Administration Likely to Succeed in Section 122 Tariff Appeal CBP continues to collect the 10 percent surcharge from all importers. The proclamation is set to expire on July 24, 2026, unless Congress extends it.
One boundary worth noting: tariffs imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (covering China) and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (covering steel, aluminum, and automobiles) were not touched by any of these rulings and remain in effect.
Bills in Congress
Members of the 119th Congress introduced several bills to rein in presidential tariff authority, none of them enacted as of mid-2026:
- Prevent Tariff Abuse Act (H.R. 407) would bar IEEPA from being used to impose tariffs or import quotas.
- No Taxation Without Representation Act (S. 1293) would require congressional approval by joint resolution for any tariff imposed under IEEPA.
- Trade Review Act (S. 1272 / H.R. 2665) would force executive tariffs to expire after 60 days without a congressional resolution of approval.
- Reclaim Trade Powers Act (H.R. 2459 / S. 4049) would repeal Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.22National Taxpayers Union. Reclaiming Trade Authority: Members of Congress Introduce Reforms to Rein in Presidential Tariffs
Until one of them passes, the shape of presidential tariff authority is being drawn case by case in the CIT and the Federal Circuit, with the Section 122 appeal the next major decision to watch.