As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs whether the president can lawfully impose tariffs under emergency powers, more than 1,000 companies have filed lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s trade measures – and seeking refunds that could total billions of dollars. Two of those cases, filed by Ferragamo USA Inc. and e.l.f. Cosmetics, Inc., offer a close look at the legal strategy behind this growing wave of litigation.
Ferragamo’s complaint – filed with the U.S. Court of International Trade on January 9 – targets tariffs imposed under a series of 2025 executive orders issued by President Donald Trump and grounded in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). The American arm of the Italian fashion company argues that the statute does not authorize the imposition of tariffs and that, without swift judicial relief, importers risk losing their ability to recover duties already paid, even if the Supreme Court ultimately strikes the tariffs down.
A similar theory is the basis for the complaint filed a few days earlier by e.l.f. Cosmetics, which also challenges the legality of IEEPA-based tariffs and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, along with full refunds of duties already paid. Like Ferragamo, e.l.f. alleges that it is an importer of record that has paid (and continues to pay) tariffs imposed pursuant to executive orders that courts have already found exceed the president’s statutory authority.
Inside Fashion & Beauty-Focused Test Cases
Ferragamo’s and e.l.f.’s lawsuits are part of a much broader legal campaign. Publicly traded companies, including Costco Wholesale Corp., EssilorLuxottica SA, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Dole Fresh Fruit Co., and J. Crew Group LLC, are among the plaintiffs challenging the tariffs. The lawsuits target duties imposed under emergency authority that the government says generated roughly $133 billion as of mid-December, paid by more than 301,000 importers across some 34 million shipments. The scale of the collections – and the potential for mass refunds – helps explain why companies are racing to lodge claims before the Supreme Court issues its decision.
Both the Ferragamo and e.l.f. cases illustrate a central concern animating the current wave of tariff litigation: timing. Although the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have already held that IEEPA does not authorize the imposition of tariffs – most notably in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump – the two companies emphasize that those rulings do not guarantee refunds for importers that have already paid the duties. As both complaints underscore, once Customs “liquidates” an entry, importers may lose the legal ability to recover unlawfully collected duties, even if the underlying tariff regime is later invalidated, absent timely judicial relief.
Against that backdrop, Ferragamo and e.l.f. assert that even a favorable Supreme Court ruling may come too late for companies that did not bring their own actions before liquidation occurs. With that in mind, both seek immediate declaratory and injunctive relief, including suspension of liquidation and orders requiring refunds of IEEPA duties with interest, to ensure that any eventual decision by the Supreme Court has concrete financial effect, rather than leaving recovery to uncertain post hoc administrative processes.
If the Court strikes down the tariffs, the government could face unprecedented repayment claims. The Ferragamo and e.l.f. filings underscore that companies are not waiting to find out whether refunds will be automatic; they are suing in advance to secure them.
Fashion, Trade & Economic Fallout
For fashion and beauty companies, which rely heavily on global supply chains, the disputed tariffs translated into immediate cost increases. Economists have linked the measures to higher importer costs, inflationary pressure, weaker manufacturing activity, and slower growth, with U.S. consumers facing the highest effective tariff rate since 1935. Against that background, the Ferragamo and e.l.f. lawsuits reflect how businesses in fashion, beauty, and consumer goods are using the courts not only to challenge the legality of the tariffs, but to ensure that if the Supreme Court rules in their favor, they will actually get their money back.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 5 in consolidated challenges to President Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs through a series of 2025 executive orders but has yet to issue a decision. While the dispute has drawn intense attention from businesses paying billions of dollars in duties each month, the Court has given no indication that it views the case as an emergency – suggesting that a ruling may follow the Court’s ordinary opinion-writing timeline rather than an accelerated schedule.
The cases are Ferragamo USA Inc. v. U.S., 1:26-cv-00504 (USCIT) and e.l.f. Cosmetics, Inc. v. U.S., 1:26-cv-00049 (USCIT).
Share
