A landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court striking down sweeping global tariffs imposed during Donald Trump’s presidency has triggered an unprecedented legal scramble by American businesses seeking refunds of import duties collected over roughly ten months. According to reports, at least 1,800 companies have already filed lawsuits, and legal experts expect many more to follow as firms attempt to reclaim payments that may collectively exceed $130 billion.

The tariffs, imposed under emergency powers, targeted a wide range of imported goods across multiple countries. While they were originally framed as a tool to protect domestic industry and counter trade imbalances, critics argued they functioned as a broad consumption tax on businesses reliant on global supply chains. The Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision declared the measures unconstitutional, fundamentally altering the legal standing of duties collected during the period.

Businesses now face a complex recovery process. Most lawsuits have been filed in the US Court of International Trade, a specialised federal court that handles tariff disputes. However, the scale of the current wave is unprecedented. Government filings suggest more than 301,000 importers were affected, including corporations, small businesses, and even individuals. The court has never dealt with refund claims of this magnitude.

Legal filings submitted by companies are reportedly similar in structure, establishing eligibility for refunds without necessarily specifying exact amounts owed. Administration lawyers had previously indicated that companies could be made whole with refunds plus interest if the tariffs were ruled unlawful. However, there is no unified mechanism yet for distributing funds, raising concerns that litigation could drag on for years.

Former President Trump has criticised the ruling for not mandating immediate refunds, while Treasury officials have indicated the administration will comply with court directives once lower courts provide clarity. At the same time, Trump has signalled he may pursue alternative tariff tools, including temporary measures under the Trade Act of 1974, suggesting protectionist trade policy could persist in another form.

The uncertainty has drawn comparisons from legal experts to mass tort litigation, given the sheer volume of claimants and potential financial exposure. Large corporations with substantial legal resources have moved quickly to file cases, while smaller businesses face barriers due to legal costs. Trade specialists say the court may eventually establish a broader refund mechanism to address inequities between large and small importers.