Founding Attorney
Costco v. United States: Why Costco Filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade Over IEEPA Tariffs
Costco sued the United States in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) to challenge tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The company contends those duties exceed the statute’s authority and put importers’ rights to refunds at risk. This article breaks down how IEEPA works, the core legal arguments in Costco’s challenge, and the immediate steps importers should take to protect entries and preserve refund claims before liquidation deadlines. You’ll find a clear definition of IEEPA, a side-by-side of Costco’s claims and likely defenses, an explanation of how the CIT handles tariff litigation, and practical guidance on protective protests, injunctions against liquidation, and refund recovery strategies. We use terms such as IEEPA tariffs, U.S. Court of International Trade, protective protest, injunction against liquidation, and liquidation deadline so importers and counsel can act precisely.
What Is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act?
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is a federal statute that lets the President regulate international commerce and financial transactions during declared national emergencies. Under IEEPA, the President may issue orders or proclamations that restrict or control imports, exports, and financial dealings when tied to national-security or foreign-policy objectives. Whether tariff-like duties fall within that delegated authority depends on statutory text, legislative history, and judicial interpretation — questions that determine both the legality of IEEPA tariffs and whether affected importers can recover duties.
The table below summarizes IEEPA’s core features for quick reference.
Use these key attributes to gauge whether and how to challenge an IEEPA-based tariff.
This concise summary explains why statutory language and precedent are central to disputes over whether tariffs are an authorized IEEPA tool.
What Authority Does IEEPA Grant the U.S. President?
IEEPA authorizes the President to investigate, regulate, or prohibit transactions in foreign exchange and international commerce during a declared national emergency. The statute operates by delegating discrete powers to the executive, which the President implements through proclamations and other orders. When courts review IEEPA actions they ask whether the President stayed within the statute’s delegated limits and whether the measures are tied to the emergency purpose. Historically, courts have seen IEEPA used for sanctions and blocking orders; extending it to tariffs raises specific statutory-interpretation issues now before the tribunals.
Clarifying that delegation framework is essential before addressing whether imposing tariffs is a permissible use of IEEPA authority.
Can IEEPA Legally Authorize Tariffs?
The central legal question is whether IEEPA can lawfully authorize tariff-like duties. Supporters argue the statute’s broad grant covers import restrictions tied to an emergency. Critics respond that tariffs traditionally are revenue and trade-policy tools set by Congress, not by general emergency delegation. Lower courts are split: some have questioned whether tariffs are functionally different from sanctions and therefore outside IEEPA’s core authority. The government points to historical executive practices and argues functional control over imports is within emergency powers. The Supreme Court’s pending review will determine whether tariffs under IEEPA are a proper exercise of delegated authority or an impermissible expansion of executive power.
Key points to weigh:
- Pro: IEEPA’s language grants broad regulatory tools over international commerce that could encompass tariff measures tied to an emergency.
- Con: Tariffs are typically governed by separate statutory regimes focused on revenue and trade policy, suggesting Congress, not the President, should set them.
- Implication: The Supreme Court’s decision will dictate whether existing IEEPA tariffs are eligible for refunds and injunction relief.
Why Did Costco File a Lawsuit Challenging IEEPA Tariffs?
Costco sued to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief and to preserve its right to recover duties paid on imports subject to IEEPA-authorized tariffs. The company alleges the tariffs exceed statutory authority (an ultra vires claim) and cause concrete economic harm through overpayment and competitive distortion. Because customs liquidation timelines can extinguish refund claims, Costco chose the U.S. Court of International Trade for its specialized jurisdiction over customs matters and for procedural remedies—protective protests and injunctions—that can halt liquidation. The strategy ties statutory interpretation directly to urgent procedural steps aimed at preserving refund recovery.
The table below contrasts Costco’s central claims with the government’s likely defenses to frame the dispute.
This comparison shows why liquidation timing and forum choice are central to litigation strategy for importers.
What Are the Key Claims in Costco’s IEEPA Tariff Lawsuit?
Costco’s complaint focuses on statutory interpretation—arguing IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs at issue—and on procedural claims that the executive exceeded delegated power and denied importers meaningful review before liquidation. The company asks the court for a declaration that the tariffs are unlawful, an injunction to stop imminent liquidations, and monetary relief in the form of refunds for duties paid. Courts will weigh textual interpretation, separation-of-powers principles, and whether administrative notice and process satisfied due process. If courts invalidate the tariffs, typical remedies include injunctions and refunds; procedural defects may produce remand or vacatur of the underlying orders.
Those legal claims translate directly into urgent practical consequences because liquidation schedules determine whether refunds remain available.
Costco’s Challenge Under IEEPA: Contesting Tariffs and Protecting Importer Remedies
Costco sued the United States in the U.S. Court of International Trade to contest tariffs issued under IEEPA, arguing those duties exceed the statute’s authority and threaten importers’ refund rights. This analysis explains the IEEPA framework, outlines Costco’s principal legal arguments, and summarizes the immediate procedural steps importers should take to preserve entries and refund claims before liquidation deadlines. It also contrasts likely remedies and describes how the CIT processes these disputes.
Recovering Unlawfully Imposed Tariffs: Navigating Refunds of IEEPA Duties, 2025
How Does the December 15, 2024 Liquidation Deadline Affect Costco and Importers?
Liquidation is the customs action that finalizes duties and typically ends most administrative paths to recovery. The December 15, 2024 liquidation deadline therefore functions as a hard cutoff: without timely protective measures, importers risk losing the right to refunds even if courts later find the tariffs unlawful. To protect recovery options, importers should file protective protests, compile transaction records, and consider emergency injunctions in the CIT to stay liquidation. Missing the deadline can turn a successful legal ruling into an effectively hollow victory if duties have already been liquidated and cannot be refunded.
The next section explains how the U.S. Court of International Trade manages these disputes and which procedural tools preserve claims.
What Role Does the U.S. Court of International Trade Play in IEEPA Tariff Disputes?
The U.S. Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction over many civil actions against the United States involving customs and tariffs, making it the principal forum for cases like Costco’s challenge. The CIT hears requests for injunctive relief, declaratory judgments, and monetary recovery tied to duties, applying statutory and administrative law standards. Its procedures can accommodate urgent relief: importers may seek preliminary injunctions to stop liquidation while their substantive claims proceed. For any importer facing IEEPA-authorized duties, understanding CIT timing, standards, and remedies is essential to preserve rights effectively.
Below are common procedural features that importers and counsel rely on in CIT litigation and how they interact with liquidation mechanics.
How Does the Court Handle Tariff Challenges Like Costco’s Case?
Typically, litigation begins with a complaint filed in the CIT, often paired immediately with a motion for preliminary injunction to halt liquidation. Briefing will focus on statutory interpretation and administrative-record review. Courts decide statutory questions de novo and review agency factual findings with deference where appropriate. To obtain an injunction, plaintiffs must show a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm — here usually framed as loss of refund rights through liquidation. The CIT can enjoin Customs’ actions, order provisional relief, and, after judgment, direct refunds if the tariff is declared invalid. Successful practice requires assembling the administrative record quickly and syncing litigation deadlines with customs liquidation windows.
Effective CIT litigation therefore combines rapid procedural steps with focused statutory argumentation to protect both rights and remedies.
What Are Recent Lower Court Rulings on IEEPA Tariffs?
Recent lower-court decisions have cast doubt on broad interpretations of IEEPA that treat tariffs as routine executive tools. Some courts have held that tariff imposition via IEEPA raises serious statutory and constitutional concerns, emphasizing statutory text, historical practice, and the unique role of tariffs as revenue and trade-policy instruments traditionally governed by Congress. Those rulings created splits that prompted Supreme Court review and intensified urgency for importers seeking refunds, since favorable lower-court outcomes can be time-sensitive relative to liquidation.
Knowing these precedents helps importers assess litigation risk and the likelihood of injunctions or refunds in their own matters.
Amending the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
Forcing Constraint: The Case for Amending the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
Forcing Constraint: The Case for Amending the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 1999
What Is the Current Status of the Supreme Court Review on IEEPA Tariffs?
The Supreme Court has taken up the central question of whether IEEPA authorizes tariff-like duties. Its decision will resolve whether IEEPA tariffs nationwide are lawful. If the Court sides with the government, the ruling would confirm the executive’s emergency tariff authority and narrow refund paths. If the Court rules against the government, it would clear the way for broad refund claims and limit future executive tariff actions under IEEPA. The timing of the decision matters because it will influence ongoing CIT litigation, liquidation strategy, and prospects for consolidated relief. Businesses should therefore preserve administrative and judicial remedies now while planning for either outcome.
Below are plausible outcomes and practical steps importers can take while the Supreme Court issues its ruling.
What Are the Implications of the Supreme Court’s Pending Ruling for Importers?
If the Supreme Court upholds IEEPA tariff authority, importers will face narrower paths to refunds and may need to rely on administrative protests or negotiated relief. If the Court rejects the authority, many importers will pursue expedited refund claims and litigate to recover duties. A divided or narrow opinion could create case-specific litigation in the CIT and uncertainty over which entries qualify for refunds, requiring tailored factual and legal claims. In every scenario, importers should preserve administrative remedies, document transactions thoroughly, and be prepared to seek judicial stays to protect liquidation windows. Acting now reduces the risk that a favorable decision will arrive too late to secure monetary recovery.
These possibilities underscore why immediate procedural steps and strategic litigation planning are essential.
Which Other Companies Are Challenging IEEPA Tariffs Alongside Costco?
Several major importers and manufacturers have filed similar challenges, arguing that IEEPA tariffs exceed statutory authority. The cluster of suits highlights the broader commercial impact and increases pressure on courts to resolve the legal question quickly. Reported plaintiffs include large retailers and manufacturers with significant import volumes; parallel litigation tends to surface common themes—statutory limits, separation-of-powers concerns, and liquidation risk—that shape plaintiffs’ strategies. Multiple cases also raise the prospect of consolidation on the key legal question, which can accelerate judicial resolution.
Collective litigation therefore raises both legal stakes and practical urgency for all affected importers.
Constitutional Authority and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
Whose Constitutional Authority Is It Anyway? Nondelegation, the National Emergencies Act, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
Whose Constitutional Authority Is It Anyway? Nondelegation, the National Emergencies Act, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 2023
How Can Importers Challenge Unlawful Tariffs and Secure Refunds?
Importers should pursue a coordinated sequence of remedies: file a protective protest, move for an injunction to stop liquidation, and bring or join a case in the U.S. Court of International Trade seeking declaratory and monetary relief. A protective protest preserves administrative rights and creates the record; an injunction can halt liquidation while litigation proceeds; and CIT litigation pursues final relief. Each remedy has strict timelines: protests must meet statutory filing windows; injunctions demand prompt proof of irreparable harm; and CIT cases follow expedited briefing tied to the administrative record. Coordinating administrative and judicial steps gives importers the best chance to recover duties if courts later invalidate the tariffs.
A practical, step-by-step sequence follows.
- File a protective protest or timely protest with Customs to preserve administrative remedies and document factual support for legal claims.
- Move for an injunction in the U.S. Court of International Trade to stay liquidation while legal challenges proceed and to protect refund rights.
- Initiate or join CIT litigation challenging statutory authority and seeking declaratory judgment and monetary refunds, aligning pleadings with the evidentiary record.
These steps work together: the protest preserves administrative options, the injunction protects against liquidation, and the CIT filing seeks final relief.
Transnational Matters law firm can assist importers at each stage. Our team specializes in international trade litigation and administrative practice, offering targeted support that includes entry assessment, protective-protest preparation, emergency injunction drafting, and full CIT representation to pursue refunds and declaratory relief. For importers facing imminent liquidation risk, we provide prioritized guidance calibrated to deadlines and evolving Supreme Court developments.
This coordinated approach helps importers preserve recovery options while the law develops.
What Legal Services Does Transnational Matters Law Firm Offer for IEEPA Tariff Challenges?
Transnational Matters provides focused representation and advisory services for importers contesting IEEPA-authorized tariffs. We evaluate entries and duty exposure, prepare and file protective protests, draft emergency injunction motions to stop liquidation, and manage CIT litigation to pursue declaratory judgments and refunds where merited. Typical engagements begin with a rapid intake and document review, followed by coordinated filings that meet critical liquidation timelines. While timelines are case-dependent, our practice emphasizes swift action to protect administrative and judicial remedies. Clients benefit from practitioner-led strategy designed to safeguard financial interests and pursue refunds efficiently within customs and federal-court frameworks.
These services support importers through every phase of dispute resolution — from administrative preservation to courtroom advocacy.
What Are Protective Protests and Injunctions Against Liquidation?
Protective protests are administrative filings with U.S. Customs that preserve an importer’s right to challenge duties and request refunds; they create the factual and legal record necessary for later claims. Injunctions against liquidation are court orders from the U.S. Court of International Trade that temporarily halt Customs’ liquidation process, preventing finalization of duties while the court decides the legal dispute. To obtain such relief, importers must compile transactional documentation, articulate statutory and constitutional claims, and show why immediate judicial intervention is necessary to avoid irreparable harm. Practical steps include filing protests without delay, preserving entry records, and moving quickly to court when liquidation deadlines loom.
Used together, protective protests and injunctions form an effective toolkit for preserving potential refund claims during litigation.
What Are the Broader Impacts of IEEPA Tariffs on U.S. Importers and Businesses?
IEEPA tariffs change cost structures, increase compliance burdens, and inject legal uncertainty across supply chains. The immediate economic effects include higher duty expenses and greater administrative workload; strategically, businesses may need to renegotiate supplier terms, adjust pricing, or hedge against policy volatility. Firms should identify entries subject to IEEPA tariffs, quantify exposures, and integrate contingency measures into procurement and contracting. Preparing now reduces operational disruption whether tariffs remain in force or a later ruling triggers widespread refund claims requiring robust documentation.
How Do IEEPA Tariffs Affect Import Costs and Trade Compliance?
IEEPA tariffs raise landed costs and compress margins for import-dependent companies while increasing the administrative demands of classification, valuation, and protest management. Importers risk paying duties they may only recover through litigation, so compliance teams must track affected entries, retain documentation, and coordinate with counsel on protest and injunction timing. Mitigation options include auditing entries for refund opportunities, considering reclassification where legally supportable, and modeling price impact under multiple legal outcomes. Quantifying exposure and strengthening documentation preserves the ability to seek refunds if litigation succeeds.
These steps turn legal uncertainty into concrete operational actions that limit downside risk.
What Should Businesses Know About Preparing for Future Tariff Changes?
Businesses should adopt a preparedness plan that covers contractual allocation of tariff risk, an internal protocol to identify at-risk entries, and a litigation-readiness checklist for timely protests and court filings. Key elements include reviewing supplier agreements for pass-through or force-majeure provisions, improving entry documentation and payment records, training customs teams on protest deadlines, and consulting specialized counsel early when policy changes occur. Firms should also run scenario planning for pricing, supplier substitution, and inventory timing to mitigate financial impacts. Early legal consultation helps tailor operational steps and contractual safeguards to the evolving legal landscape.
Use the short checklist below to begin implementing these measures immediately.
- Review Contracts: Confirm contracts allocate tariff risk and consider adding pass-through or force-majeure clauses where appropriate.
- Identify Entries: Track entries subject to IEEPA tariffs and prioritize retention of supporting documentation.
- Establish Protocols: Create internal procedures for filing protective protests and coordinating with counsel on injunctions.
- Engage Counsel Early: Consult trade-specialized counsel to align administrative and judicial steps with liquidation timelines.
These actions give businesses concrete starting points to limit exposure and preserve recovery options while the law remains unsettled.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the potential consequences for importers if the Supreme Court upholds IEEPA tariff authority?
If the Supreme Court upholds IEEPA tariff authority, importers will face narrower avenues for recovering duties paid under those tariffs. A ruling for the government would validate the executive’s emergency tariff power and make refunds harder to obtain, pushing many importers to rely on administrative protests or negotiated remedies instead of straightforward judicial refunds. The decision could also broaden executive latitude to impose tariffs in future emergencies, changing compliance and commercial planning.
How can importers prepare for potential changes in IEEPA tariff regulations?
Importers should take a proactive stance: review and update contracts to allocate tariff risk, implement internal processes to flag at-risk entries, and create a litigation-readiness checklist for timely protests and court filings. Engaging specialized counsel early helps align operational steps with legal strategy. Additionally, scenario planning for pricing and supply-chain adjustments can reduce financial shock from sudden tariff changes.
What role do protective protests play in challenging IEEPA tariffs?
Protective protests preserve an importer’s administrative right to contest duties and seek refunds. Filing a protective protest creates the record needed for later claims and safeguards statutory protest rights—critical when liquidation deadlines are approaching. In short, a timely protective protest keeps recovery options open while litigation or administrative review proceeds.
What are the implications of the December 15, 2024 liquidation deadline for importers?
The December 15, 2024 liquidation deadline is a pivotal cutoff: once entries are liquidated, many administrative remedies and refund paths become limited. Importers who do not file protective protests or obtain injunctions risk losing the ability to recover duties, even if courts later rule the tariffs unlawful. That deadline makes rapid action essential to preserve claims.
How does the U.S. Court of International Trade facilitate tariff litigation?
The U.S. Court of International Trade provides a specialized forum for disputes about customs and tariffs, with exclusive jurisdiction over many such suits. The CIT handles requests for injunctive relief, declaratory judgments, and monetary recovery and can issue stays to prevent liquidation while cases proceed. Its procedures are tailored to combine urgent procedural relief with substantive review of statutory and administrative questions.
What strategies can importers use to maximize their chances of recovering duties?
To maximize recovery odds, importers should file protective protests promptly, seek injunctions to halt liquidation when appropriate, and pursue or join CIT litigation challenging statutory authority. These actions should be supported by comprehensive documentation and a focused legal theory. Engaging experienced trade counsel to coordinate administrative and judicial filings significantly increases the chance of securing refunds if courts later invalidate the tariffs.
Conclusion
Costco’s challenge to IEEPA tariffs highlights how statutory interpretation and urgent procedural steps intersect for importers facing economic harm. Understanding IEEPA, acting quickly on liquidation deadlines, and coordinating protective protests with potential injunctions are essential to preserve recovery options. For tailored legal assistance on these issues, our team is available to review exposures and help you implement the administrative and litigation steps that protect your financial interests.