A wave of major U.S. and multinational companies has filed lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade seeking repayment of tariffs collected under emergency trade measures that were recently invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Among the businesses pursuing refunds are FedEx Corp., Bausch & Lomb, Dyson Ltd. and L'Oreal SA. The companies argue that duties imposed in 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unconstitutional and must be repaid in full.

In a 6-3 decision issued Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that determined the president lacked authority under the statute to impose sweeping global tariffs. The majority concluded that the Constitution assigns the power to levy taxes and duties to Congress, not the executive branch.

Following that decision, more than two dozen importers moved quickly to file individual complaints with the trade court. Their filings contend that although the tariffs have been deemed unlawful, importers are not automatically entitled to refunds without obtaining their own court judgments.

Several of the complaints state that the duties on affected imports have either already been “liquidated” — meaning finalized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection — or soon will be. Because customs officials were acting pursuant to executive orders, the companies argue they had no administrative avenue to challenge the assessments directly and must instead seek judicial relief.

In addition to repayment of the tariffs, many of the plaintiffs are requesting interest, litigation costs and attorney fees.

A spokesperson for FedEx said the company initiated legal action to preserve its rights as an importer of record and to pursue recovery of duties paid under the invalidated tariff program.

The legal scramble follows earlier proceedings in which the trade court declined to issue a preliminary injunction to certain retailers challenging the same tariff regime. At the time, the court indicated that importers would retain the ability to seek refunds should the tariffs ultimately be struck down — a scenario that materialized with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, rejected the government’s reliance on statutory language referencing regulation of importation, stating that such wording could not support the sweeping tariff authority claimed by the executive branch.

Within hours of the decision, the president issued a new executive order invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a temporary across-the-board tariff. That provision allows the president to set tariffs of up to 15% for a limited duration unless Congress authorizes an extension. The new order initially set the duty at 10%, later raising it to the statutory maximum of 15%.

Customs authorities subsequently announced they would cease collecting the invalidated emergency tariffs.

The refund litigation now before the Court of International Trade could determine how quickly and fully companies recover funds paid under the prior tariff program, potentially involving hundreds of millions of dollars across affected industries.