FedEx sues US seeking ‘full refund’ of Trump Tariffs after Supreme Court declares them illegal

Federal Express has filed suit against the United States government seeking a “full refund” of tariffs imposed under President Donald Trump’s emergency economic powers, days after the Supreme Court ruled those levies unlawful. The case, lodged at the US Court of International Trade, marks the first major corporate effort to reclaim duties paid under a regime the high court struck down in a 6–3 decision last week.

The lawsuit intensifies the legal and financial repercussions of the Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), raising the prospect of billions of dollars in repayment claims across corporate America.

FedEx Tariff Refund Lawsuit Filed at Trade Court

FedEx filed its 11-page complaint at the Court of International Trade, which the Supreme Court confirmed has “exclusive jurisdiction” over disputes relating to the IEEPA tariffs. The plaintiffs are Federal Express Corp. and its affiliate FedEx Logistics. Named defendants include US Customs and Border Protection, its commissioner Rodney Scott, and the United States government.

“Plaintiffs seek for themselves a full refund from Defendants of all IEEPA duties Plaintiffs have paid to the United States,” the complaint states.

The company did not disclose the amount it has paid under the tariff regime since Trump extended the measures to most US trading partners last year.

Legal representation for FedEx is being provided by Washington-based Crowell & Moring, which also represents companies such as Costco, Revlon and EssilorLuxottica in related IEEPA refund actions.

Supreme Court Declares Emergency Tariffs Illegal

In a closely divided ruling, the Supreme Court determined that Trump’s reliance on emergency economic powers to impose sweeping tariffs exceeded statutory authority. While the majority opinion invalidated the duties, it declined to resolve whether importers that paid more than $170 billion in contested tariffs are entitled to refunds, instead leaving the issue to lower courts.

In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh cautioned that a repayment process was “likely to be a ‘mess.’”

Trump signalled resistance to swift payouts, stating, “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”

Justice Department’s Prior Assurances May Complicate Refund Fight

The Trump administration’s legal strategy now faces potential constraints stemming from its own earlier court filings. After the trade court initially declared the tariffs unlawful last May, government lawyers urged judges to allow tariff collection to continue during appeals, arguing that refund mechanisms were available should the administration ultimately lose.

In filings last summer, Justice Department attorneys wrote that plaintiffs whose cases reached the Supreme Court “will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest” if they prevailed.

Although subsequent filings have been less definitive, trade lawyers contend that federal judges are unlikely to ignore those assurances. In a December ruling, a three-judge panel of the trade court suggested the administration could not reverse course without triggering the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

The panel observed that the government could not take “a contrary position” after it had “convinced” the court that importers “will be able to receive refunds” even if their tariff obligations became final.

Over 1,500 Refund Cases Pending as Legal Risks Mount

FedEx’s action comes amid a growing wave of litigation. More than 1,500 tariff refund lawsuits are currently pending, according to analysis, although that figure represents only a fraction of potential claimants. By the end of 2025, over 300,000 importers had paid the challenged tariffs.

Legal experts caution that the administration may still attempt to narrow refund eligibility or construct a complex claims process. Siddartha Rao of Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney suggested that a prolonged administrative mechanism could prove “labyrinthine” and burdensome, potentially functioning as a de facto denial for companies requiring immediate liquidity.

The Justice Department has also indicated it reserves “our right to challenge specific complaints” for repayment even if it loses on the broader legality question.