Costco Wholesale Corp. has become the largest U.S. company so far to challenge former President Donald Trump’s sweeping import tariffs, asking a federal trade court to order a refund of the duties it has already paid. The warehouse-club retailer has filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, arguing that the levies, imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were unlawfully applied and should be rolled back for affected importers.
The case underscores how deeply Trump’s trade measures have affected big-box retailers that rely heavily on imported goods, from electronics and clothing to food and household items. By going to court now, Costco is seeking not only to recover money it says was improperly collected, but also to protect its position if the legal landscape shifts sharply once the nation’s highest court rules on the tariffs.
The move places Costco alongside brands such as Revlon and canned-seafood and chicken producer Bumble Bee Foods, which have launched similar challenges as the dispute moves toward a decisive test before the U.S. Supreme Court. Together, these lawsuits amount to the most prominent wave of corporate pushback so far against Trump-era “reciprocal” tariffs that hit goods from major trading partners, including China, Canada and Mexico.
Supreme Court Weighs Presidential Tariff Powers
Earlier this year, both the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump’s broad use of emergency economic powers to impose global tariffs exceeded the authority granted by Congress under IEEPA. Those decisions, which labeled his most far-reaching import taxes illegal, are now under review in a combined case before the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on November 5. Several justices voiced doubts about the idea that a president can unilaterally declare an economic emergency and then levy tariffs on goods from nearly every country.
At the heart of the case is a separation-of-powers question: who ultimately controls tariff policy, the White House or Congress? The Constitution assigns taxing and tariff powers to the legislative branch, and critics argue that Trump’s actions effectively rewrote trade law without explicit approval from lawmakers. In earlier rulings, judges concluded that long-standing trade imbalances and supply-chain dependence did not amount to the kind of “unusual and extraordinary threat” that would justify sweeping emergency tariffs under IEEPA, and that the statute was never meant to grant open-ended tariff authority.
Costco Races Against Customs Deadlines
In its complaint, Costco says it is acting now to ensure that any eventual Supreme Court ruling does not arrive too late for the company to reclaim duties it has already paid. The retailer notes that once its tariff bills are finalized, a process known as “liquidation” by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and scheduled to begin on December 15, a 180-day period starts during which importers can formally protest those assessments. If that window closes before the Supreme Court rules, Costco fears its claim to a complete refund could be jeopardized.
The strategy reflects a broader rush among importers to secure their place in line. Trade attorney Joyce Adetutu, a partner at Vinson & Elkins, has described companies like Costco as seeking judgments in their own names so they are clearly entitled to repayment if the tariffs are invalidated. Analysts such as Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, point out that there is still uncertainty over whether refunds will be granted at all and, if they are, how far back they will reach and how they will be administered.
Billions In Tariff Revenue And Economic Stakes
The contested tariffs have generated roughly $90 billion in revenue so far, according to court filings, highlighting the scale of the potential refund exposure for the federal government. Customs and Border Protection routinely processes tariff adjustments and smaller rebates, but trade lawyers say the agency has never had to handle a surge of refund claims that could involve thousands of companies and multiple years of import transactions. Any decision forcing large-scale repayments could require complex administrative procedures and significant time to implement.
The White House has defended the measures as a key instrument in trade negotiations, warning that an unfavorable ruling could strip the Treasury of tens of billions of dollars and weaken U.S. leverage with foreign partners. Trump has argued that abandoning the duties would devastate the U.S. economy, comparing the potential impact to “1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!” Supporters of the challenges counter that the tariffs have raised costs for American manufacturers, retailers and consumers while injecting uncertainty into global supply chains.
The Supreme Court’s decision, expected sometime in 2026, is likely to define the outer limits of presidential power over trade for years to come and determine whether companies such as Costco, Revlon and Bumble Bee Foods can recover the tariffs they have already paid under Trump’s emergency program.
