ANALYSIS: IEEPA Litigation Recap: EO Challenges, Refund Lawsuits

The Supreme Court’s Feb. 20 decision to strike down President Trump’s tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act serves as a legal milestone for many reasons. But what shouldn’t be overlooked is that the ruling offers the chance to step back and survey the litigation landscape that formed in the first year of the tariffs epic.

Two types of filings in particular have made a sizable impact on the federal courts: the few, high-profile lawsuits that, like Learning Resources v. Trump, challenged IEEPA tariff-related executive orders; and the much-larger wave of complaints filed by parties requesting refund relief from tariffs that had been assessed, a wave that is continuing—and building—to this day.

Here is a by-the-numbers analysis of both groups of lawsuits, with a view to finding trends or lessons applicable to whatever the next wave brings, as tariffs approach the highest level of filing activity seen in recent years.

Lawsuits Against IEEPA Tariffs

While the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s IEEPA tariffs in Learning Resources, that wasn’t the only lawsuit filed challenging Trump’s IEEPA tariff executive orders.

A search of the Bloomberg Law Executive Order & Related Developments Tracker revealed 10 federal lawsuits challenging IEEPA tariffs, and the EOs that gave rise to them.

These challenged EOs address tariffs imposed on individual countries, as well as a global tariff imposed across the board on all countries. Nine of these 10 lawsuits cited multiple tariff EOs, with one plaintiff naming as many as 13 separate orders in its complaint.

All in all, 17 different EOs were cited in at least one lawsuit. Six of the challenged EOs were related to China tariffs, four to global tariffs, and three to Canada tariffs, and three to Mexico tariffs.

Four lawsuits challenged all four of these tariff types together, three challenged two of them together, and the remaining three limited the scope of their claims to one type individually.

The Who, When, and Where of the Litigation

Two of the 10 cases were filed by states. One was brought by a group of a dozen Democratic-led states and the other by California and its governor, Gavin Newsom. The others were brought by businesses selling a variety of goods; nonprofit organizations; and, in one case, tribal members in Montana.

The plaintiffs filed their cases quickly. Half of the lawsuits were filed less than two weeks after the president issued the latest executive order cited in the complaint. The case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. et al v. United States of America was filed the fastest — only five days after the date of the latest EO cited.

Trump signed most of these EOs in February, March, and April, and seven of the 10 lawsuits were filed in April. Plaintiffs didn’t file Firedisc, Inc. v. Trump until July, but that was only two weeks after the effective date of the newest EO they challenged. The other two cases were filed between three and six months after the latest orders challenged were filed.

Three of the cases were filed in the US Court of International Trade—the typical venue for tariff-related cases—and two were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The remaining five went to one of five federal district courts: Northern District of Florida, Western District of Texas, Northern District of California, District of Rhode Island, and District of Montana.

In several of the cases that weren’t brought in the CIT, the federal government filed motions to transfer the cases there. (In Smirk & Dagger Games v. Trump, the plaintiffs were the ones who requested a CIT transfer.) The government was successful in transferring venues to CIT in two cases—Emily Ley Paper Inc. v. Trump and Webber v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.—and was unsuccessful in two cases—Cal. v. Trump and Learning Resources.

Consolidation on the Way to Supreme Court

Learning Resources, of course, is the one that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, after being consolidated with V.O.S. Selections.

The plaintiffs in Learning Resources filed April 22 to challenge EOs 14195, 14228, 14257, 14259, and 14266, which pertain to the China tariffs and the catch-all global tariffs. Learning Resources and hand2mind Inc., private companies based in Illinois, initially brought the case in the federal district court in Washington, D.C.

That D.C. district court denied the Trump administration’s motion to transfer the case to the CIT and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that IEEPA did not give the president the authority to impose tariffs.

Meanwhile, in the CIT, the plaintiffs in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. et al, filed on April 14 to challenge EOs 14195, 14228, 14257, and 14266, which regarded China and global tariffs. The case was consolidated with Oregon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., brought by 12 states on April 23, which also filed in the CIT.

In its February ruling effectively resolving all three challenges, the US Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Shortly after, Trump issued EO 14389 to terminate the IEEPA tariffs.

Lawsuits Requesting IEEPA Refunds

The CIT, home to most of the Trump tariff refund lawsuits, isn’t used to the filing numbers it’s been seeing. The court has just a dozen judges and a typical caseload numbering a few hundred per year.

Already, as of March 11, the court has seen 1,690 complaints filed in 2026. That’s more than in any full year since 2020. It’s also more than 2021 through 2024 combined.

As discussed below, the numbers for 2025 and 2026 are largely driven by parties seeking refunds of the IEEPA tariffs.

The last time the CIT saw such a significant spike in cases was in 2020, with the majority falling under the court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) residual jurisdiction. While most of those cases related to antidumping and countervailing duties, about 460 of those cases related to tariffs the Trump administration imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act or Section 301 of the Trade Act.

Volume of Refund Cases Driving Numbers

After the second Trump administration took office, business as usual proceeded in the CIT—until December. That’s when overall cases, driven by companies suing for IEEPA tariff refunds, surged.

Two months before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, the CIT issued a ruling attempting to solidify the United States’ positions on “reliquidation"—a concept that’s key to how refunds would be preserved and calculated. The Dec. 15 order in AGS Co. Automotive Solutions v. CBP was well-timed: The typical process for refunds has strict deadlines, and for a large number of entries made after IEEPA tariffs were put in place, that deadline was approaching quickly.

But if the CIT meant to reassure importers that flocking to the courthouse to suspend liquidation to protect their refund rights was unnecessary, it failed spectacularly.

From Jan. 1, 2025 to Dec. 14, 2025 (the day before the AGS ruling), the court saw 595 filings, 305 of which were IEEPA tariff refund cases, or just over half.

Following AGS and before the Supreme Court invalidated the IEEPA tariffs in Learning Resources, a little more than two months passed, but it was a big two months for refund cases. In that time, there were 1,577 filings, almost three times as many as the previous 12 months. And 1,450 of them, or 92%, sought IEEPA tariff refunds.

Since the Learning Resources ruling, the pace hasn’t slowed. From Feb. 20 to March 11, the CIT saw 627 filings—a lot for a three-week period. And, consistent with the recent trend, 566 of them (90%) were requesting refunds. This will remain a hefty burden for this specialized court going forward, and one that may continue to grow.

—With assistance from Louann Troutman.

Bloomberg Law subscribers can find related content, including the new Tariffs: At the Crossroads report, on our In Focus: Tariffs resource.

For further insights on tariffs, access Bloomberg Law’s new webinar, Adapting to Tariff Turmoil.

If you’re reading this on the Bloomberg Terminal, please run BLAW OUT <GO> in order to access the hyperlinked content, or click here to view the web version of this article.