Costco challenges Trump administration tariffs in federal court

Costco Wholesale Corporation is seeking to overturn hundreds of millions of dollars in import duties, filing suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade to contest tariffs issued under the Trump administration’s use of emergency economic authority.

America’s third-largest retailer’s case targets the administration’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement broad, global tariffs—an approach business groups and legal scholars have argued exceeds the limits of presidential authority.

“This separate action is necessary, however, because even if the IEEPA duties and underlying executive orders are held unlawful by the Supreme Court, importers that have paid IEEPA duties, including Plaintiff, are not guaranteed a refund for those unlawfully collected tariffs in the absence of their own judgment and judicial relief,” reads Cosco’s official complaint.

Costco’s complaint asserts that the duties were enacted without a legally sufficient emergency basis and that importers are entitled to refunds if the measures are ultimately struck down.

“The economic consequences of the failure to uphold President Trump’s lawful tariffs are enormous, and this suit highlights that fact,” said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. “The White House looks forward to the Supreme Court’s speedy and proper resolution of this matter.

A central concern in the filing is the timeline for “liquidation,” the administrative process that locks in final tariff assessments. Costco argues that unless courts intervene, importers may permanently lose the ability to reclaim duties even if the underlying policy is invalidated.

The company, which relies on imports for roughly a third of its U.S. merchandise, is one of the largest retailers to challenge the tariff structure directly. Its case joins a broader wave of litigation from companies seeking clarity on the scope of executive trade powers, as the issue moves toward possible review by the Supreme Court.

The outcome could reshape future presidential authority on trade actions and determine whether retailers may recover duties paid under the contested regime.