Why fashion companies are suing over Trump tariffs ahead of Supreme Court ruling

As the US Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, a significant legal mobilisation is underway across global fashion businesses and supply chains. According to Bloomberg reporting, more than a thousand companies have now entered the courts, positioning themselves for what could become one of the largest tariff refund battles in US history.

The lawsuits, filed largely since November, reflect mounting confidence that the court may strike down Trump’s use of a 1977 emergency powers statute to justify broad import duties. If that happens, the question will quickly shift from legality to logistics: who gets refunded, how, and under what conditions.

Bloomberg estimates that roughly 133 billion dollars in tariffs were collected under the emergency authority alone, spread across hundreds of thousands of importers and tens of millions of shipments. Apparel, textiles, footwear, automotive parts, beauty, and consumer goods companies feature prominently among the plaintiffs, underscoring how deeply the tariffs cut into everyday categories.

For much of 2025, many companies stayed on the sidelines, wary of political retaliation or reputational risk. But after Supreme Court justices openly questioned the administration’s authority during November arguments, hesitation gave way to urgency. Filing a lawsuit, lawyers told Bloomberg, has become less a protest than an insurance policy: without a case on file, companies may have no clear path to reimbursement if refunds are handled through the courts.

Wary of retaliation

Household names, from mass retailers to cosmetics brands and footwear labels, are now joined by smaller, founder-led businesses. Some describe delayed hiring, higher consumer prices, or reduced imports as direct consequences of tariff costs. Bloomberg reporting highlights how these pressures ripple unevenly across the market, hitting smaller operators hardest even as larger corporations stand to recover far greater sums.

The Trump administration has warned that forcing refunds would undermine national security and has signalled it could attempt to reinstate tariffs under alternative legal frameworks if the emergency powers route is closed. Trade lawyers note, however, that those options are slower, narrower, and more vulnerable to challenge.

Even a ruling against the tariffs would not deliver immediate relief. The Supreme Court is expected to leave refund mechanics to lower courts, likely triggering years of additional litigation. There is precedent, most notably a 1990s trade tax case that led to mass repayments, but nothing on this scale.

For now, companies are preparing paperwork, auditing import records, and bracing for uncertainty. As Bloomberg’s analysis shows, the legal fight has become a mirror of the modern global economy: fragmented, interdependent, and deeply exposed to political risk.

Whether the court sides with the administration or the challengers remains to be seen, but the ruling is set to redefine the cost structures of fashion, retail, and manufacturing for years to come.