Tech companies have started suing the US government to seek repayment of tariffs that the Supreme Court recently declared unconstitutional, with Nintendo of America filing a complaint after the February 20th Supreme Court opinion in the case of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump found that the administration was not able to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs.
Several tech companies have filed cases in the United States Court of International Trade, seeking refunds of tariffs the Supreme Court found illegal, with Lenovo's complaint dated February 20th—the day of the Supreme Court decision.Nintendo of America filed a lawsuit on March 6 in the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing that those tariffs were unlawfully imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 and seeks the return of the collected duties with interest, along with attorney fees and the reprocessing of its import entries.
The Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to unilaterally set tariffs, vacating many of the tariffs implemented during the second Trump administration.The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, stated that IEEPA does not give the president the power to set tariffs.
Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists estimate that IEEPA-based tariff collections total approximately $175 billion to $179 billion, a figure that exceeds the combined fiscal 2025 spending of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice.More than 1,000 businesses had already sought tariff refunds before the ruling was issued.
Plaintiffs are asking the United States Court of International Trade to rule that they are due a refund, plus interest, and also seek costs. However, significant complications loom.Customs and Border Protection told a judge that it collected $166 billion in tariffs as of a recent date.Customs and Border Protection said in a filing it cannot currently comply with the order to refund tariffs, with a system potentially becoming operational in 45 days.
The refund question exposes a deeper tension between corporate profits and consumer harm.Several companies increased prices or changed pricing schemes after the introduction of tariffs, meaning consumers paid more.Law firm Arnold & Potter predicted a wave of consumer class actions and noted a few are already in motion, describing the class actions as untested and in their early stages but warning they have sweeping implications on businesses across virtually every industry.
By the day after the Supreme Court ruling, Trump promised to set new global tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to the maximum 15% allowed after initially calling for a 10% tariff, with Section 122 allowing for the president to set such universal tariffs limited to 150 days and requiring congressional approval for extension to deal with serious balance-of-payments deficits. This move signals that the tariff battle continues in the courts and in commerce, even as the original legal foundation has crumbled.