Trump faces 2,000 tariff lawsuits following Supreme Court loss

WASHINGTON – In the days since the US Supreme Court declared most of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs illegal, more than 100 companies filed new lawsuits, underscoring widespread concerns that the administration will not readily refund the billions of dollars it is already collected.

Public companies and household names are joining the clamor. FedEx filed suit on Feb 23, followed by Dyson, Dollar General, Bausch & Lomb, Brooks Brothers, and Sol de Janeiro USA.

Units of cosmetic giant L’Oreal SA and shoe companies On Holding AG and Skechers USA also filed suit to recoup what they have paid on imports.

The justices were silent on the refund question, leaving questions of payback to the New York-based US Court of International Trade.

On March 6, the Justice Department is due to weigh in on immediate next steps in the original litigation that went before the Supreme Court, which could indicate how quickly – or slowly – the government is willing to move to resolve the mounting claims.

Mr Trump has suggested his administration might oppose refunds, or at least not make the process easy for the importers that have paid more than US$170 billion (S$214.9 billion) in tariffs in the past 10 months. “I guess it has to get litigated,” he said after the Feb 20 ruling, speculating it could take years to play out. 

The latest cases have pushed the total number of tariff lawsuits above 2,000, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. It is already a hefty caseload for the trade court to manage and represents only a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of importers that paid the tariffs that the justices struck down.

In a statement, FedEx said it “has taken necessary action to protect the company’s rights as an importer of record to seek duty refunds” following the Supreme Court’s ruling. “If refunds are issued to FedEx, we will issue refunds to the shippers and consumers who originally bore those charges.”

Representatives for the other companies declined to comment or did not respond to requests to comment. Spokespeople for the Justice Department and White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Most of the companies suing have been smaller businesses. While many large public companies were able to shift supply chains, negotiate with vendors and factories, or simply absorb the hit of tariffs, smaller firms do not always have the same flexibility or clout.

But the entrance of major, publicly listed companies such as FedEx creates additional momentum for other firms to file suit.

When executives at smaller businesses see a filing from a big company that has in-house attorneys and Washington connections, they think “maybe they know something I don’t know,” said Mr Jason Kenner, a trade lawyer who represents plaintiffs in refund cases.

There is also political safety in numbers, said Mr David Craven, a trade lawyer pursuing refund cases. When large companies like FedEx and Costco get involved, it reduces the “fear of retaliation” from the White House, Mr Craven said.

Still, some firms may wait to sue until the next phase of the legal proceedings is clear, and regardless, no one expects a speedy resolution. “This is not money that in any way you can count on in any short-term period,” said Mr Nate Herman, executive vice president at the American Apparel & Footwear Association, a lobby group.

Next steps

The trade court has been automatically pausing tariff cases until the Supreme Court action is over. It can normally take more than a month for the high court to formally close out a case, but companies already have been urging lower courts to take steps to reopen the proceedings so they can press for refunds as soon as possible.

Lawyers involved in these cases have been highlighting past statements by the Justice Department assuring at least some importers they would be repaid – with interest – if they won, and that the administration would make concessions about the trade court’s authority to order refunds.

The trade court has experience overseeing a mass refund process, though never at this scale. After the Supreme Court struck down a harbour maintenance tax on exports in 1998, the court managed several thousand claims for repayment.

The refund battle between importers and the government could trigger other legal fights, such as disputes between importers and retailers or other companies that agreed to share the costs of the tariffs. 

A New York man filed a proposed class action lawsuit against eye-wear giant EssilorLuxottica SA this week arguing to recoup the extra money he says he paid for Ray-Ban sunglasses because of tariff-related price hikes. EssilorLuxottica, which has a pending refund lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Consumers cannot seek refunds from customs authorities, even if companies passed on the cost of higher levies by raising prices. Prominent Democratic lawmakers have called for the administration to directly send refund checks to American households. BLOOMBERG