CASE BACKGROUND

Beginning on February 1, 2025, President Donald Trump, through a series of executive orders, increased tariffs on U.S. goods imported from nearly every foreign country. As a legal basis, the President invoked and relied upon the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IIEEPA).

On April 2, 2025—a date President Trump called “Liberation Day”—the President declared a “national emergency” regarding the United States’ trade deficit in bilateral trade relations. In response, the President signed an Executive Order raising a 10% baseline tariff on imports originating in nearly all foreign countries. From April through November 2025, President Trump signed ten additional Executive Orders raising, reducing, or otherwise modifying the IEEPA tariffs on a country-by-country basis.

On February 20, 2026, the United States 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 President’s legislative power. (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287, slip. op. at 20 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026)). Accordingly, all tariffs under IEEPA and all duties collected under that authority were done without authorization and were unlawful.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, President Trump immediately replaced his 10% baseline tariff by invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—an action no U.S. President has ever taken. On February 21, Trump, announced via Truth Social, that the 10% tariffs would be raised to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level.”

On February 22, 2026, United States Custom and Border Protection (CBP) announced that the duties enacted under the unlawful tariff orders “will no longer be collected for goods entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:00 a.m. eastern time on February 24, 2026.”

Despite revoking the IEEPA tariffs, CBP provided no guidance addressing refunds for duties already assessed and liquidated. It has not announced or issued any process or procedure to repay the illegally imposed and collected tariffs. Currently, there is no path forward for any prospective plaintiffs or class members to receive redress for the unlawful duties assessed and paid.

Untitled design (2)

CONTACT US

Our firm is investigating importer’s abilities to obtain economic redress from these illegal IEEPA tariffs.

Please contact our firm if you:

  • Have knowledge about any importers impacted by these unlawful tariffs.
  • Want to learn more about our investigation into how these tariffs have economically affected importers across the country.

Any information you provide to us will be kept strictly confidential as provided by law.

If you wish to inform us of any unfair business practice, antitrust or competition issue, or comment on one of our cases, please use the form below. There is no cost or obligation for our review of your case. We agree to protect your name and all confidential information you submit against disclosure, publication, or unauthorized use to the full extent under the law. Please note that completion of this form does not contractually obligate our firm to represent you. We can only represent you if both you and our firm agree, in writing, that we will serve as your attorney. Please read our disclaimer. Any information you provide to us will be kept strictly confidential as provided by law.
SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE


SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE


CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL CASE HISTORY +

AUGUST 19, 2021

The Court ruled that plaintiffs will have to find new direct purchasers after the consumers who bought from the companies directly were forced into arbitration. Judge Orrick gave counsel 30 days to substitute the three direct purchaser plaintiffs and upheld almost all of the consolidated class complaints from direct buyers, indirect purchaser plaintiffs who bought vaping products through retailers, and the indirect reseller plaintiff retailers who went through distributors.

OCTOBER 20, 2020

On August 24, 2020, Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California appointed the firm as Interim Lead Counsel for the direct purchaser plaintiffs. Among many factors, the Court favorably took into consideration our firm leadership team’s diversity, which reflects the proposed class we represent. On October 22, Judge Orrick issued a pretrial order to officially confirm the appointment. READ LESS –