Legal Battle Brewing Over Tariff Refunds After High Court Decision

Following a Supreme Court ruling that found President Trump lacked authority to impose certain tariffs, companies are preparing to flood federal courts with lawsuits seeking refunds. More than 1,800 cases are already pending, with law firms representing major corporations in what could become a lengthy legal fight over $175 billion in customs revenue.

Following Friday’s Supreme Court decision declaring that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority when implementing tariffs through emergency powers legislation, legal experts anticipate a massive wave of refund litigation heading to the U.S. Court of International Trade, where businesses have already assembled teams of attorneys to recover their tariff payments.

Legal professionals specializing in trade law indicate that the number of refund-seeking lawsuits – currently exceeding 1,800 cases – may dramatically increase following the justices’ rejection of the legal foundation supporting approximately $175 billion in customs collections since April of last year.

During a Friday White House press briefing, Trump announced plans to implement additional tariffs while forecasting an extended court battle for businesses pursuing refunds. “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years,” he stated.

Court documents reviewed by Reuters show that Washington-based Crowell & Moring has submitted no fewer than 150 refund cases to the trade court following Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff declaration last April, advocating for major corporations such as warehouse retailer Costco, beauty company Revlon, and eyewear manufacturer EssilorLuxottica, which produces Ray-Ban glasses.

Sidley Austin, another prominent legal firm, has participated in over 150 tariff-related lawsuits since April, providing representation for companies including J. Crew, Illumina, Dole, and Diageo.

Representatives from both Crowell and Sidley were unavailable for immediate comment.

Among the smaller practices handling substantial caseloads is Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt, a 40-attorney trade specialty firm that has initiated more than 300 tariff lawsuits on behalf of clients including high-end fashion houses Prada and Dolce & Gabbana. Joseph Spraragen, a partner at Grunfeld, explained that clients compensate the firm through flat fees for case initiation.

Legal representatives informed Reuters they anticipate filing numerous additional cases in upcoming weeks at the New York-headquartered Court of International Trade, where importing companies have a two-year window to pursue refund claims.

“The time to do it was yesterday. The next best time to file is today,” stated Richard O’Neill from Neville Peterson, a 10-attorney practice with over 100 pending lawsuits.

Julian Beach from Pillsbury law firm, which maintains more than twelve active cases, identified a crucial question regarding whether the trade court possesses authority to issue rulings with nationwide impact in refund cases. According to Beach, the Justice Department has indicated it will oppose any attempts to secure nationwide injunctive relief.

Trade attorney Brian Janovitz of DLA Piper, who represents clients pursuing refunds, noted that even if the government acknowledges owing refunds for previous imports, the specific procedure remains unclear. He predicted additional trade court lawsuits are probable “because companies will want to preserve that avenue of seeking relief given the uncertainty.”

Pillsbury partner Nancy Fischer suggested that if refund disputes proceed through the courts, the process will likely be combative, referencing Trump’s Friday comments about anticipated litigation.

“It really depends on whether the administration decides to play hardball,” Fischer explained. “It could get resolved quickly, if the parties were in agreement, but I am not so sure that necessarily is going to be the case.”