Costco Wholesale has initiated a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contesting the legality of extensive import tariffs established under the Trump administration. This legal action, filed on November 28 in the United States Court of International Trade, seeks to recover costs associated with duties on imported goods. The tariffs were introduced during the president’s announcement of 'Liberation Day' on April 2.

Costco is joined by over 70 other major firms, including Revlon, Bumble Bee Foods, Kawasaki Motors, and EssilorLuxottica, which owns brands like Ray-Ban. This collective effort marks a notable shift, as larger corporations are now publicly contesting the tariffs, a role previously dominated by smaller importers. The central issue at stake is the extent of executive authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs across the economy. The Supreme Court of the United States is currently deliberating this matter.

Should the court rule that the tariffs are unlawful, Costco and its co-plaintiffs are advocating for refunds of the duties they have already paid. Costco argues that the tariffs exceed the presidential authority granted by IEEPA and is seeking a court order to invalidate the tariffs, prevent further collections, and mandate reimbursement for all duties paid on imported goods. The company has reported that U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied its request for additional time to finalize import calculations, which could hinder its ability to reclaim tariffs once entries are finalized.

While Costco has not disclosed the total amount paid in tariffs, it has indicated that approximately one-third of its U.S. sales derive from imports, suggesting potential costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars, particularly for non-food items. The outcome of this legal dispute may significantly impact the financial landscape for various retailers and importers, as well as influence the U.S. government's approach to trade policy under emergency powers.

In related developments, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent addressed the ongoing Supreme Court deliberations during the New York Times DealBook Summit on December 3, 2025. He noted that the administration's tariffs, including a baseline 10% duty on imports from nearly all nations, are justified under IEEPA, which grants the President broad authority to impose economic measures following a declared national emergency. The administration has cited increased fentanyl imports as the basis for this emergency declaration.

Should the Supreme Court determine that the fentanyl crisis does not constitute a valid emergency for imposing such tariffs, the administration may seek alternative legal frameworks to sustain its tariff structure. Bessent indicated that the White House could utilize other sections of trade legislation, such as Sections 301 and 232 of the Trade Act, to impose tariffs without the need for a national emergency declaration. Section 301 requires an investigation into trading partners' practices deemed unjustifiable, while Section 232 allows tariffs to be justified on national security grounds.

Bessent expressed confidence in the administration's position, suggesting that a Supreme Court loss would be detrimental to the American populace. He noted that China had agreed to enhance controls on fentanyl precursor chemicals, attributing this development to the pressure exerted by existing tariffs. Bessent characterized tariffs as a 'shrinking ice cube,' emphasizing the administration's goal of rebalancing trade and promoting domestic production. Despite the potential for legal challenges, the administration appears prepared to adapt its approach to maintain its tariff policies.