Hundreds of importers have rapidly initiated lawsuits against tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), as they await a critical Supreme Court ruling assessing the statute’s legality. The lead case in this high-stakes legal battle is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which is being consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. These lawsuits are centered on whether the IEEPA grants the authority to impose tariffs and, if so, whether such delegation of powers complies with constitutional principles. Oral arguments were presented on November 5, 2025.
The IEEPA, a statute enacted in 1977, has generally been used by U.S. presidents to manage foreign economic transactions during national emergencies. In 2025, the Trump administration made significant use of this act, implementing broad tariffs that included extensive “reciprocal tariffs” on various imports and specific “fentanyl/trafficking tariffs” targeting goods from Mexico, Canada, China, and other nations.
Importers challenging these tariffs have raised several key points in their arguments:
– They assert that the IEEPA does not grant the authority to set tariffs as per U.S. trade law.
– They claim that the act represents an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s exclusive rights to determine tariffs.
– They demand refunds for all duties paid if the tariffs are ultimately deemed unlawful.
Recently, numerous importers sought to recover fees through the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). However, the court denied a preliminary injunction to prevent the liquidation of affected imports. Nevertheless, the CIT acknowledged its capacity to order the reliquidation and refunds following the Supreme Court’s decision, notably with the government’s agreement not to contest such relief. Although the CIT has refrained from implementing broad case-management procedures at this time, it indicated that it would establish guidelines for liquidation and refund matters once the Supreme Court’s ruling is issued.
Several notable importers, such as Costco, Reebok, Peloton, and Dole, have joined the litigation in the CIT, with these cases, along with over 900 similar actions nationwide, being consolidated based on shared legal questions and placed on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
As importers await the Supreme Court’s ruling, they are encouraged to proactively safeguard their potential refund rights by:
– Filing an IEEPA action in the CIT: Importers affected by IEEPA tariffs should consider pursuing legal action before liquidation deadlines, as the CIT has suggested that administrative remedies may not suffice.
– Monitoring liquidation status closely: Since entries liquidate automatically after a specific period, importers must keep track and, if possible, seek to delay or contest liquidation to maintain their refund claims.
– Keeping detailed records: Comprehensive documentation, including invoices, proof of duty payments, entry summaries, and additional records, will be vital for any future protests, reliquidations, and refunds.
– Staying updated with CIT case-management updates: Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the CIT is anticipated to provide guidance on refund and reliquidation processes, making it crucial for importers to remain informed.
With the complexities and uncertainties tied to the Supreme Court’s decision, it is advisable for importers to engage experienced trade counsel for strategy development that aligns with their specific business operations and exposure to tariffs. This cautious and proactive approach may help minimize risks and ensure compliance with evolving legal frameworks surrounding tariffs.