• Major corporations including FedEx (FDX) and L'Oreal (LRLCY) join smaller businesses in filing over 2,000 lawsuits seeking tariff refunds
  • At stake is more than $170 billion in tariffs collected under authority the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional
  • Refund processes remain undefined, with legal experts warning resolution could take years as pressure mounts on the government

In the weeks since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sweeping tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, litigation has surged past 2,000 cases as businesses scramble to recover what they paid under what the court deemed unconstitutional authority. The legal onslaught represents one of the largest waves of tariff-related litigation in modern history and creates significant uncertainty for both businesses and government agencies tasked with potential refunds.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority on February 20, 2026, held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs of any kind. The decision applied the major questions doctrine, reasoning that because the Constitution grants taxing power exclusively to Congress, such sweeping economic authority required clear congressional authorization that IEEPA did not provide. The ruling struck down tariffs imposed on imports from Canada, China, and Mexico as well as broader reciprocal tariffs.

"We're seeing an unprecedented volume of filings," said one attorney familiar with multiple cases who requested anonymity to discuss ongoing litigation. "Every major importer who paid these tariffs is now evaluating their legal options, and many have already filed."

According to court documents reviewed by our analysis, the lawsuits collectively seek recovery of more than $170 billion in tariffs paid under the now-invalidated authority. The figure represents one of the largest potential refund obligations in U.S. trade history and creates significant fiscal pressure on the Treasury Department as it determines how to respond.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh's 63-page dissent argued that tariffs are "a traditional and common tool to regulate importation" and that the major questions doctrine should not apply. But with the majority ruling now established as precedent, businesses are moving quickly to capitalize on the legal opening.

Major corporations including FedEx and L'Oreal have joined smaller businesses in filing suits, according to people familiar with the matters. The diversity of plaintiffs suggests the litigation will span multiple federal districts and could eventually be consolidated for efficiency.

Without a clear refund mechanism established by Congress or the administration, companies are pursuing individual lawsuits as their primary recovery path. Legal experts warn this approach could create years of litigation and inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions.

"The government faces a fundamental choice here," said a trade attorney representing several plaintiffs. "They can fight each case individually and potentially face decades of litigation, or they can work with Congress to establish a comprehensive refund process. So far, we're seeing the former approach."

Efforts to reach representatives from the White House and Treasury Department for comment were unsuccessful. A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection declined to comment on pending litigation but noted the agency is "reviewing the Supreme Court decision and its implications for ongoing operations."

Rather than accepting defeat, the Trump administration has pursued alternative legal pathways. Within hours of the Supreme Court ruling, Trump issued an executive order imposing a 10 percent tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, later increasing it to 15 percent—the maximum allowed. These tariffs are set to expire after 150 days unless Congress extends them.

Both the House and Senate have already passed bills disapproving of the IEEPA tariffs, making congressional extension of the Section 122 tariffs unlikely. This positions a potential confrontation between the executive and legislative branches within the next 150 days.

For businesses now pursuing refunds, the immediate challenge is navigating uncertain legal terrain. The Supreme Court's decision creates what one corporate general counsel described as "a refund limbo"—clear authority that the tariffs were unconstitutional but no established mechanism for recovery.

"We paid millions under what we now know was an invalid exercise of authority," said the CEO of a mid-sized manufacturing company who asked not to be named due to ongoing litigation. "Our shareholders expect us to pursue every dollar, but the process is completely undefined."

As the litigation wave grows, some legal observers are watching for potential class action certifications that could streamline the process. Others note that the sheer volume of cases might eventually force the government to negotiate broader settlements.

What's clear is that the Supreme Court decision has opened a new front in the long-running battle over presidential trade authority—one that will play out in courtrooms across the country even as the political debate continues in Washington.