The war in the courts over tariff refunds took a key step forward this week as President Donald Trump’s newly implemented tariffs are facing a new legal challenge, less than a month after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling last month, but, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in his dissent, the president still has several options to impose tariffs under other laws. Kavanaugh also argued that sorting out refunds would be chaotic. Both of Kavanaugh’s predictions are panning out, with Trump’s renewed tariff efforts becoming the latest target of legal challenges.
Trump’s renewed tariffs face another lawsuit
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s Feb. 20 ruling, Trump imposed a 10% tariff globally late last month using Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which authorizes him to impose duties of up to 15% without congressional approval for 150 days. His decision was met with uproar from Democrat-led states, who vowed to fight the new tariffs in court.
On Thursday, a coalition of 23 Democrat-led states and two Democratic governors filed a lawsuit aimed at halting the Section 122 tariffs.
“The focus right now should be on paying people back, not doubling down on illegal tariffs,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield (D), who led the coalition, said in a statement.
The lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade accused Trump of having a “fatally flawed” justification for invoking the 1974 Trade Act.
“Contrary to the purpose and limited delegation of Section 122, President Trump has invoked this statute to impose immense and ever-changing tariffs on whatever goods entering the United States he chooses and for whatever reasons he finds convenient,” the lawsuit claimed.
“As with his unlawful use of IEEPA, the President has once again exercised tariff authority that he does not have—involving a statute that does not authorize the tariffs he has imposed—to upend the constitutional order and bring chaos to the global economy,” the lawsuit continued.
The case has yet to be assigned to a judge.
Supreme Court refund lawsuits moving forward
The Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the sweeping tariffs imposed under IEEPA did not elaborate on how to handle refunds, even though the matter of refunds arose in oral arguments in November 2025, when the justices heard the case.
“If you win, tell me how the reimbursement process would work. Would it be a complete mess?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked a lawyer arguing against the tariffs during oral arguments, adding she said it “seems to me like it could be a mess.”
After Neal Katyal, the lawyer arguing against the tariffs before the justices in November, explained the complex process, Barrett replied, “So, a mess?” Barrett was one of the six justices who voted to strike down the tariffs with the majority ruling. Neither the majority opinion nor Barrett’s concurring opinion discussed how to handle refunds.
Kavanaugh’s dissent expressed concern over the “serious practical consequences in the near term” of the majority’s ruling, including the issue of refunds. He expressed frustration about how the majority said nothing “about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”
Shortly after the ruling was issued, several anti-tariff groups and the lead plaintiffs of the case said they would push forward in court for tariff refunds.
“We look forward to the government’s refund of these improperly collected taxes,” Victor Owen Schwartz, plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s tariff case and founder of V.O.S. Selections, said shortly after the high court’s ruling.
The case V.O.S. Selections v. Trump was remanded to the U.S. Court of International Trade, where lawyers for the various businesses suing over the IEEPA-based tariffs asked the court on Feb. 24 to issue an order “requiring the government to issue all necessary administrative orders to effectuate the permanent injunction, including the administrative.” The court has yet to rule on the motion.
The Trump administration had requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is above the Court of International Trade, to halt the tariff case from returning to the lower court for 90 days. However, the appeals court swiftly rejected that request on March 2, setting the tariff cases in motion to advance to handling the refund process.
The same week the appeals court denied the bid to slow down a tariff refund case from moving forward, a judge in the Court of International Trade handed the administration a major loss. Judge Richard Eaton, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, ordered on Wednesday that “all importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit of the Learning Resources decision.”
Eaton also noted that the chief judge on the court had selected him to deal with all of the tariff refund cases, meaning “there is no danger that another Judge, even one in this Court, will reach any contrary conclusions.”
SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN TRUMP’S SWEEPING ‘LIBERATION DAY’ TARIFFS
“To find otherwise would be to thwart the efficient administration of justice and to deny those importers who have filed suit the efficient resolution of their claims, and to deny entirely importers who have not filed suit the benefit of the Learning Resources decision,” he added.
The decision does not immediately issue refunds, but it marks a key step forward for companies receiving refunds, even as the Trump administration attempts to resume its tariff regime under different laws.