Supreme Court Ruling Prompts Apparel Importers to Seek Trump-Era Tariff Refunds

The Supreme Court’s mid-February 2026 decision voiding large portions of emergency tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act set off an immediate scramble: more than 1,800 companies have moved to recover duties from what outlets put at roughly $130 billion and some coverage framed as a "$133 billion question." Courts and government agencies are bracing for a flood of claims that could reshape cash flows for importers and retailers.

Big-name filers are already in the mix. Costco, Revlon and Bumble Bee Foods filed suits before the high court ruled so they’d be first in line; FedEx turned to the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, telling the court it had “suffered injury” from paying the tariffs and seeking relief. Entrepreneur’s reporting flagged corporate players such as Goodyear and Barnes & Noble, while Eagle Creek owner Travis Campbell said he hoped to recoup more than half a million dollars in duties his company paid.

Where the refunds land is anyone’s guess. Lawyers at Clark Hill expect the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Court of International Trade and other lower federal courts to hash out the process. Ryan Majerus, a King & Spalding partner and former U.S. trade official, suggested the government might try to streamline claims management, potentially by setting up a special online portal where importers could file for rebates. That would be one path; another is mass litigation.

Trade groups are pushing for speed. National Retail Federation Executive Vice President David French said, “We urge the lower court to ensure a seamless process to refund the tariffs to U.S. importers. The refunds will serve as an economic boost and allow companies to reinvest in their operations, their employees and their customers.” Freight forwarder Sobel Network Shipping Co. Inc. called the ruling “a reprieve for importers and supply chain managers” while warning it also “introduces a period of uncertainty as the Treasury Department determines the mechanism for potential rebates.”

Not everyone expects an easy administrative fix. Joyce Adetutu, a partner at Vinson & Elkins, warned, “It's going to be a bumpy ride for awhile,” and said the government “is well-positioned to make this as difficult as possible for importers,” potentially pushing companies into court. Entrepreneur’s coverage warned of “‘asbestos level’ litigation ahead,” a grim nod to the sheer volume and complexity lawyers anticipate.

Small importers celebrated publicly: Victor Owen Schwartz, a small wine importer and plaintiff in related litigation, said it was “impossible to describe the feeling of elation” after the ruling. At the same time, containers stacked at the Port of Long Beach on Feb. 20 provided a visual cue that the ripple effects will touch ports, logistics networks and retailers, including apparel chains that rely on predictable duty treatment.

What comes next is procedural and political. Treasury must reconcile the reported $130–$133 billion in collected duties and decide whether to open an administrative claims portal or let courts sort refunds. Expect months of filings at the Court of International Trade, parallel administrative pleadings at CBP and pitched fights between deep-pocketed corporations and smaller importers jockeying for recovery. The accounting and the access to cash will determine who wins the refund race.