President Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs netted at least $130 billion in the 10 months they were in effect. For businesses, getting a refund could take far longer.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of Trump’s tariffs last Friday, dozens of companies have rushed to court to try to get their money back, joining hundreds of others who filed suits in anticipation of the court’s ruling.
To date, at least 1,800 companies have filed lawsuits seeking refunds, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, with more joining the rolls every day. Most—including well-known names like Costco Wholesale, Goodyear Tire & Rubber and Barnes & Noble Purchasing—filed ahead of the Supreme Court ruling.
More companies have joined them in the days since the court’s decision, including FedEx, and lawyers are predicting a deluge of litigation to come.
“We’re talking asbestos level of lawsuits,” said Matthew Seligman, a federal litigator who is filing lawsuits for importers, referring to the thousands of lawsuits filed over decades seeking recovery for alleged injuries related to the material. But the tariff cases, he said, are “all happening at the exact same time.”
Through Dec. 10, at least 301,000 importers were subject to the tariffs that were ultimately struck down, Customs and Border Protection officials said in a court filing. That total likely includes many businesses, but also some individuals who paid tariffs directly on goods purchased overseas, lawyers have said.
The task of handling the cases is falling to the Court of International Trade, a specialized New York City-based federal trade court that has plenty of experience with matters like this—though none of them have involved as many potential litigants or a price tag of this magnitude.
The Trump administration has sent mixed signals in the wake of the tariff ruling about how it will approach returning the money.
In filings in one of the cases that ultimately went up to the Supreme Court, the administration’s lawyers assured lower courts that companies could be “made whole through a refund, including interest” if the tariffs were ultimately ruled unlawful.
On Friday, an angry Trump criticized the justices for not including a clear directive in their opinion and told a reporter asking him if the administration planned to issue refunds: “It’s not discussed. We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”
In a Sunday appearance on Fox News, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the administration would look to the lower court for guidance. “It’s out of our hands, since it’s in the court, and we will follow the court’s orders,” he said.
Attorneys for the companies in the case that went to the Supreme Court tried to kick off that process in the lower court Tuesday, filing requests with both the Court of International Trade and a separate appellate court to get a court order that would require the government to promptly refund all tariffs paid.
The Trump administration’s first response to that push for refunds is due Friday.
So far, the flood of legal filings are largely carbon copies of each other, laying out the bare facts and reasons why each company is owed money. The plaintiff companies haven’t generally revealed how much they believe they are owed.
In December, the trade court put all litigation over the tariffs on hold while the Supreme Court challenge played out. The trade court said in January that it would launch other processes as needed after a final ruling from the Supreme Court. The trade court didn’t respond to several requests for comment.
In lawyers’ optimistic assessments, it could take as little as a year, or two. Pessimistic guesses run considerably longer.
Many companies are getting significantly different guidance on whether they have to file lawsuits in the trade court in order to secure their refunds. Some advisers are telling their clients to sit tight for now, and that there is no need to file lawsuits before their bill is finalized. Meanwhile, some law firms are now positioning themselves to bring numerous challenges.
Harlan Stone, whose family owns vinyl-flooring business HMTX Industries, filed a refund case with the trade court on Dec. 22, despite thinking that such a move might not ultimately be necessary.
“It’s a belt-and-suspender move, in case they favor litigants,” he said.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Milbank have each set up a dedicated task force of attorneys to handle filings.
Not everyone is willing to take the step of going to court. Kimberly Daniels, a Washington, D.C.-based customs broker at Mercantile Logistics & International Trade, said 20 of her clients are looking to get refunds of $2,200 to $7 million each in the tariffs at issue. Of those, only the largest, publicly traded firm was able to file a case; the others don’t have the financial resources to hire lawyers.
“I’m just telling them to hope that Customs does the right thing” and refunds the money, she said.
Experienced trade lawyers say it is possible that the Court of International Trade litigation results in a refund process that is accessible to all importers, and that the companies that are filing lawsuits are simply taking steps to maximize their chances of success faster.
“It’s possible the CIT, as part of its remand, will set up some kind of court-overseen process,” said Greg Husisian, a partner at Foley & Lardner who is representing several Fortune 500 companies. “It’s all about creating that extra mechanism to potentially get quicker relief.”
Write to Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@wsj.com, Lydia Wheeler at lydia.wheeler@wsj.com and Chao Deng at chao.deng@wsj.com