Hundreds of importers have rushed to file lawsuits challenging tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as they await a Supreme Court ruling on the statute’s overall legality. The lead case before the Court is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., which examines whether IEEPA authorizes the imposition of tariffs and, if so, whether that delegation of authority is constitutional. Oral argument was heard on November 5, 2025.

At the center of these cases is a challenge to tariffs imposed pursuant to IEEPA, a 1977 statute historically used to allow presidents to regulate certain foreign economic transactions during national emergencies. In 2025, the Trump administration invoked IEEPA to impose a broad set of tariffs, including sweeping “reciprocal tariffs” on most imports and targeted “fentanyl/trafficking tariffs” on goods from Mexico, Canada, China, and other countries.

In recent filings, importers have argued that:

• IEEPA does not authorize the imposition of tariffs under U.S. trade law;
• The statute represents an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s exclusive authority to set tariffs; and
• If the tariffs are ultimately ruled unlawful, importers are entitled to refunds of all duties paid.

Recently, after numerous importers filed refund actions in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), the court denied a request for a preliminary injunction to halt liquidation of affected entries. However, the CIT acknowledged that it retains authority to order reliquidation and refunds following the Supreme Court’s decision—particularly given the government’s stipulation that it will not oppose such relief. The CIT has also declined implementing mass case-management procedures at this stage but indicated it will establish a framework to address liquidation and refund issues once the Supreme Court rules.

A number of prominent importers—including Costco, Reebok, Peloton, and Dole—have filed suit in the CIT as part of this broader litigation. These cases, along with more than 900 similar actions nationwide, have been consolidated around common legal issues and stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision.

While the Supreme Court’s ruling remains outstanding, importers are encouraged to take proactive steps to preserve their potential refund rights, including:

1. Filing an IEEPA action in the CIT – Importers paying IEEPA tariffs should consider filing suit before liquidation deadlines, as the CIT has indicated that administrative protest remedies may be inadequate in this context.
2. Closely monitoring liquidation status – Entries liquidate automatically after a statutory period. Importers should track liquidation closely and, where possible, seek to suspend or challenge liquidation to preserve refund claims.
3. Maintaining robust records – Comprehensive documentation—including commercial invoices, proof of duty payments, entry summaries, and related records—will be critical for future protests, reliquidations, and refunds.
4. Monitoring CIT case-management orders – Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the CIT is expected to issue guidance governing refund and reliquidation procedures. Staying informed will be essential to securing timely relief.

Given the complexity and uncertainty surrounding the Supreme Court’s pending decision, importers should consult experienced trade counsel to develop strategies tailored to their business operations and tariff exposure. Braumiller Law Group, PLLC has filed more than 80 IEEPA-related lawsuits to date and can assist with preparing and submitting actions in the CIT. To discuss the IEEPA litigation or the filing of an IEEPA-related lawsuit, please contact Brandon@braumillerlaw.com or Bob@braumillerlaw.com.