After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a wave of recovery lawsuits has emerged, and the Trump administration has faced over 2,000 tariff-related lawsuits.

Within days of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that most of President Trump’s global tariffs are illegal, over 100 companies have filed new lawsuits, highlighting widespread market concern: the U.S. government may not easily refund the tariffs previously collected.

The Supreme Court justices did not comment on the refund issue, leaving the matter to be decided by the U.S. International Trade Court in New York.

Several publicly traded companies and well-known brands have joined the lawsuits. FedEx filed a suit on Monday, followed by Dyson, Dollar General, Bausch & Lomb, Brooks Brothers, and Sol de Janeiro. Subsidiaries of cosmetics giant L’Oréal, as well as shoe companies On Holding AG and Skechers, have also sued to recover tariffs paid on imported goods.

Trump previously stated that his administration might oppose refunds or at least not allow importers to easily reclaim their money. Over the past 10 months, these importers have paid more than $170 billion in tariffs. After the February 20 ruling, Trump said, “I guess this has to be resolved through litigation.” He estimated the process could take years.

Media analysis indicates that the latest batch of cases has pushed the total number of tariff-related lawsuits over 2,000. This is already a heavy burden for the trade court, and it accounts for only a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of importers who paid tariffs that the Supreme Court later rejected.

FedEx stated in a release that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the company “has taken necessary steps to protect its rights as an importer seeking tariff refunds. If FedEx receives a refund, we will return the funds to the original payers—shippers and consumers.”

Most of the companies filing lawsuits are smaller businesses. Many large publicly traded companies can adjust their supply chains, negotiate with suppliers and factories, or absorb the tariff costs themselves. Smaller businesses often lack such flexibility or bargaining power. However, the involvement of large companies like FedEx and Costco provides additional motivation for other businesses to pursue legal action.

Trade attorneys say that when small business executives see large corporations with in-house legal teams and Washington connections filing lawsuits, they think, “Maybe they know something I don’t.” Politically, having more participants also feels safer. When big companies like FedEx and Costco get involved, fears of retaliation from the White House decrease.

However, some companies may wait until the legal process becomes clearer before deciding whether to sue. Regardless, no one expects the issue to be resolved quickly.

Before the Supreme Court case concludes, the trade court has automatically paused related tariff cases. Usually, it takes over a month for the Supreme Court to officially close a case, but companies have urged lower courts to take steps to restart proceedings to expedite refunds.

Lawyers involved in the cases note that the U.S. Department of Justice has previously assured at least some importers that if they win, they will be reimbursed with interest, and the government would make concessions on the issue of courts ordering refunds.

The trade court has experience handling large-scale refund programs, though never on this scale. After the Supreme Court abolished export port maintenance taxes in 1998, the trade court processed thousands of refund claims.

The dispute between importers and the Trump administration over refunds could also trigger other legal conflicts, such as disputes between importers and retailers or other companies agreeing to share tariff costs.

Even if companies pass higher tariff costs onto consumers through price increases, consumers cannot directly request refunds from customs authorities. Some Democratic lawmakers have called for the government to issue direct refund checks to American households.

Risk Warning and Disclaimer

The market carries risks; investments should be made cautiously. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not consider individual users’ specific investment goals, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their particular circumstances. Investment is at your own risk.