CASE BACKGROUND
Beginning on February 1, 2025, President Donald J. Trump, through a series of Executive Orders, unilaterally increased tariffs on goods imported from nearly every foreign country. As a legal basis, the President invoked and relied upon the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. (IEEPA).
However, on February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that President Trump’s invocation of “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs” and was an unconstitutional exercise of the legislative power by the President. Accordingly, all tariffs announced under IEEPA and all duties collected under its authority were without authorization and unlawful.
Plaintiff MSR Imports, Inc. is a U.S.-based receiver of goods that were delivered via international postal shipments by defendant Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) and subject to duties pursuant to the IEEPA tariffs. Plaintiff paid the unconstitutional IEEPA tariffs through FedEx.
FedEx is a transportation carrier entitled to transport de minimis goods (valued under $800) by international mail. On July 30, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order mandating transportation carriers such as FedEx apply and collect IEEP duties to such goods on behalf of the United States. After appropriating the IEEPA tariffs from MSR Imports, Inc., FedEx remitted such duties to the United States. In this capacity, FedEx served as an agent to the United States and is therefore responsible for its collection of the unconstitutional tariffs.
FedEx has publicly promised that it will refund any unconstitutional tariffs it recovers from the government to the consumers and businesses that paid them, stating on its website that its “intent is straightforward” and that “if refunds are issued to FedEx, we will issue refunds to the shippers and consumers who originally bore those charges.”
Absent this lawsuit, however, there is no legal mechanism to enforce FedEx’s promise and ensure that plaintiff or class members receive compensation for the unlawful duties assessed by FedEx on behalf of and remitted to the government. Indeed, FedEx’s promise of a refund also states that “[w]hen [refunds] will happen and the exact process for requesting and issuing refunds will depend in part on future guidance from the government and the court.” And even more importantly, plaintiff and class members are the proper recipient of any refund from the government, not FedEx.
