On Feb. 20, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The decision immediately invalidated an estimated $165 billion or more in customs duties collected on imports over the preceding year.

In its wake, a wave of consumer class actions has emerged against retailers, brands, manufacturers and logistics companies, alleging that those businesses unjustly profited by passing unlawful tariff costs to consumers, while simultaneously pursuing, or being eligible for, government refunds of those same tariffs.

In June, the federal government appealed the U.S. Court of International Trade's March 4 order requiring refunds on all duties paid under the IEEPA. Some companies have announced that they will pass refunds along to customers, adding another layer of complexity to tariff refund litigation.

This article examines the background of the tariffs and the Supreme Court's decision, discusses the resulting class actions and the theories on which those cases rest, and analyzes the defenses being raised in response.

To continue reading Michael Buchanan, Julie Simeone, and James Mayer's article in Law360, please click here.