FedEx sues for refund of Trump tariffs, days after Supreme Court ruling

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Mon Feb 23, 2026, 08:13 PM - Edit history (3)

Source: CNBC

Published Mon, Feb 23 2026 6:02 PM EST Updated 2 Min Ago


Federal Express on Monday sued the U.S. government, seeking a "full refund" of the money the shipping giant paid for tariffs unilaterally imposed last year by President Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court ruled last week were illegal.

FedEx's suit appears to be the first filed by a major American company seeking a refund for tariffs after Friday's Supreme Court decision. Other companies filed lawsuits staking claims to their refunds before the high court ruled that the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are illegal.

Those suits, whose plaintiffs include retail warehouse club giant Costco, remain pending at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, the same court where FedEx filed its lawsuit. The Supreme Court, in its ruling on Friday, said the Court of International Trade has "exclusive jurisdiction" over the IEEPA tariffs.

"Plaintiffs seek for themselves a full refund from Defendants of all IEEPA duties Plaintiffs have paid to the United States," Federal Express Corp, and its associated company, FedEx Logistics, say in the new lawsuit.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/23/fedex-trump-trade-tariffs-refunds-supreme-court-lawsuit.html

---

Link to SUIT (PDF viewer) - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72314557/2/federal-express-corporation-v-united-states/

Link to SUIT (PDF) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.19237/gov.uscourts.cit.19237.2.0_1.pdf


Article updated.

Previous articles/headline -

FedEx sues U.S. seeking full refund of Trump tariffs days after Supreme Court ruling

Published Mon, Feb 23 2026 6:02 PM EST Updated 7 Min Ago


Federal Express on Monday sued the U.S. government, seeking a "full refund" of the money the shipping giant paid for tariffs unilaterally imposed last year by President Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court last week ruled were illegal.

FedEx's suit appears to be the first one filed by a major American company seeking a refund for tariffs paid after the Supreme Court decision on Friday. Other companies previously filed lawsuits seeking refunds, before the high court ruled that the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are illegal.

FedEx filed its lawsuit at ther Court of International Trade, which the Supreme Court ruling on Friday said has "exclusive jurisdiction" over the IEEPA tariffs.

"Plaintiffs seek for themselves a full refund from Defendants of all IEEPA duties Plaintiffs have paid to the United States," says the suit, which names as plaintiffs Federal Express Corp, and its associated company FedEx Logistics. The named defendants are U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which collects tariffs, its commissioner, Rodney Scott, and the U.S. government.

Published Mon, Feb 23 2026 6:02 PM EST Updated 1 Min Ago


Federal Express on Monday sued the U.S. government, seeking a "full refund" of the money the shipping giant paid for tariffs unilaterally imposed by President Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court last week ruled are illegal.

FedEx's suit appears to be the first one filed by a major U.S. company after the Supreme Court decision seeking a refund of the tariffs it has paid.

Other companies previously filed lawsuits seeking refunds, before the high court ruled that the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are illegal.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.


Original article -

Published Mon, Feb 23 2026 6:02 PM EST


This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. When we absolutely positively have to have it back /nt

[underpants]

2. Pamela Jo is going to be busy.

And the DOW isn’t over 50,000!!!

I’d file in DC if possible and put it in Porto’s lap.

Link to tweet

?s=46&t=3VBm1LJ8j8qLp6JTs_8J2A

Link to tweet

?s=46&t=3VBm1LJ8j8qLp6JTs_8J2A

[efhmc]

3. Love it.

[BWdem4life]

4. After which they'll refund consumers for any costs they passed on

[VMA131Marine]

9. Well they should because in most cases FedEx didn't pay the tariffs, their customers did

Not only that but FedEx (and UPS, DHL, etc) charge a extortionate brokerage fee to the recipient for the privilege of having them front the tariff for you.

The money is not FedEx’s to keep and they will get sued if they try. There are also records of all the tariffs they have paid and on whose behalf so it’s not like they don’t know who to provide the refund to.

[Bluetus]

15. Let the lawsuits begin

The bigger the mess, the better.

I don't much care how the earlier tariffs are refunded as long as they are shoved up Trump's ass, metaphorically speaking.

The big issue is making sure this screws up Trump's next wave of tariffs made under the 1974 law. There will be lawsuits seeing injunctions. When considering injunctive relief, the court must consider who is likely to prevail, and who is injured if the injunction is granted or not granted. Last week's SCOTUS ruling makes it very likely that Trump would lose again. And if there is great chaos in doing these refunds, that becomes a strong reason to grant the injunction. In other words, "The count has determined that it is likely the plaintiffs will prevail, and if the court allowed the tariffs to proceed, this would present a major hardship on the plaintiffs who would then have to seek refunds. And we can see this is a very painful, chaotic process. On the other hand, if the court grants the injunction while hearing the merits of the case on an expedited basis, the government is not harmed at all unless they can demonstrate the new tariffs are legal under their new theory."

[delisen]

5. I think we should demand consumer refunds, ala Gov Pritzker

Some economists are already coming up reasons why we won’t get this.

However I think refunds to us is required to achieve justice.

The people should be the group that are reimbursed when we are unfairly charged, and we should be the group considered to big to fail when the banks steal and squander.

What our country needs more than anything is a a public tha that demands that our needs must come before corporate wants or needs.

A country is its people, and the goods and services providers must not come before us.

[slightlv]

13. I so agree with you, delisen!

But there'll be no one who actively advocates in our favor, I'll lay odds. I love what the governor did, but I also see it as a bit of performance art - knowing it'll go nowhere. WE paid the damned taxes, AND we paid the increases in prices that corporations added on in their bit to "pass on" their costs. But no where will we ever be paid back a 10th of what we've spent. Gotta forgive me. I went to the grocery store yesterday for a week's worth of groceries. Now I'm trying to figure out how to pay the ambulance fee that's overdue. Either pay to eat or to live. That's what we've come to.

[twodogsbarking]

6. they deliver

[ToxMarz]

7. Why would FedEx pay tariffs, importers pay them on the goods not the shipping.

FedEx may have.been required to collect them for the govt at delivery but it wasn't them paying. Or am I missing something.

[erronis]

8. Unless Fedex is receiving the goods at port of entry and have to make the payments then.

Still, I'm sure that Fedex would pass any of those costs on to the recipient.

Good question.

[VMA131Marine]

10. When the tariffs aren't pre-paid by the shipper ...

which pretty much everything coming in through the mail now is, then the carrier, i.e. FedEx will pay the tariff at the port of entry. When they deliver the item to the customer it’s C.O.D. and the customer has to pay the tariff plus a brokerage fee to FedEx to get their shipment. The brokerage fee is often a significant fraction of the tariff itself.

I’m assuming FedEx wouldn’t refund the brokerage fee but any tariff refund would not be theirs to keep.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. I finally found a link to the suit and added to the OP -

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72314557/2/federal-express-corporation-v-united-states/

In the suit, they indicate that they fit the definition listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section-101.1 as an Importer - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-19/chapter-I/part-101/section-101.1

Importer. “Importer” means the person primarily liable for the payment of any duties on the merchandise, or an authorized agent acting on his behalf. The importer may be:

(1) The consignee, or

(2) The importer of record, or

(3) The actual owner of the merchandise, if an actual owner's declaration and superseding bond has been filed in accordance with § 141.20 of this chapter, or

(4) The transferee of the merchandise, if the right to withdraw merchandise in a bonded warehouse has been transferred in accordance with subpart C of part 144 of this chapter.

Am guessing in reference to that #4 in the definition. I.e., as a 3rd party "shipper", they are holding (in warehouses) and transferring what the importers who contract with them, bring in (where some have their own delivery services like Amazon but others rely on 3rd parties like Fedex/UPS/USPS/DHL, etc).

So there might be some kind of arrangement between the importer and shipper to split the tariff costs.

[ToxMarz]

16. Found a long (AI) answer

Here is why they are filing the lawsuit themselves despite passing costs to customers:
Legal Standing: Under U.S. trade law, only the party that actually paid the government—the Importer of Record—has the legal standing to demand a refund. Because FedEx’s logistics arm often formally "entered" the goods into the U.S., they are the only entity the government recognizes as the payer.
Administrative Responsibility: FedEx frequently uses its own funds to pay duties at the border to ensure packages aren't delayed. While they then invoice the shipper or recipient to get that money back, the original transaction was between FedEx and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Corporate Rights: In its February 23, 2026, filing, FedEx explicitly stated it is taking action to "protect the company's rights as an importer of record".
The "Pass-Through" Problem: Whether FedEx will eventually pass these refunds back to their customers is a major point of debate. Currently, there is no legal requirement for them to do so, and some lawmakers are already calling for legislation to ensure consumers get their share.
In short: FedEx is acting as the "legal owner" of the payment, regardless of who they billed later. If the government owes a refund, it goes to the person who signed the check at the border—which, for millions of packages, was FedEx.

[VMA131Marine]

18. If FedEx doesn't pass the refunds back to the recipient

Who they billed the tariff amount to, they are going to get sued themselves. It will be a massive class action.
I personally have paid close to $1000 in tariffs via UPS as the importer. They aren’t entitled to keep any refunds they recover.

[VMA131Marine]

17. No, not at all.

They just pass the tariff cost onto the recipient AND charge a substantial (like 25-50% of the tariff) fee for doing so. So, no they never pay the tariff.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. What I posted was referenced directly from the lawsuit

I.e., what statute they referenced that basically "qualified" them to have "standing" to sue as an "importer".

Now what agreements and processes they and brokers/importers, etc., have with their shippers about who collects/pays/reimburses, etc., is probably going to vary.

[VMA131Marine]

21. They may have standing to sue as the importer of record

But what are their damages if they’ve already been reimbursed for the tariffs and brokerage fees by the ultimate recipient of the goods? Lawsuits have to include a claim for damages.

Perhaps they are doing this in anticipation of getting sued themselves.

[BumRushDaShow]

22. We are about to find out

how convoluted the system is.

WAY WAY back in the earlier part of my fed career, in the '80s and '90s I did some training details doing imports stuff and eventually got to visit our ports here in Philly, Dundalk in MD, "the Bridge" (Ambassador Bridge) in Detroit, and Blaine in WA state at the Canadian border.

Our agency worked with Customs (it was easier before they got thrown into DHS) when it came to our regulated products, which involved our "MAY PROCEED" or "REFUSAL", etc., decisions, and it was basically head-exploding keeping track of who was who.

[AZJonnie]

11. Imagine how confused the average thumb-sucking RWNJ will be when they hear about this case

Actually, they probably won't cause it won't be on Faux, who I'd imagine are still hard at work convincing the cultists that "foreign countries" were paying all of Trump's tariffs

[BadgerMom]

14. I want my share!

We moved in December and I needed a few items here and there where old stuff was lacking. I considered tariffs and chose items that were in my price range, assuming the price reflected tariffs. Additionally, we had things sent to my daughter because she was in Santa Fe while we packed up a home we’d just sold.

Well, come January our daughter, as recipient, was sent a tariff bill from FedEx for $300+. Of course, we paid it. I told my husband as he was putting our tax info together that we should include the tariff bill as an income deduction as a tax we’ve paid. Sure, Jan. But I still think we should do it, citing the SC decision stating it’s a tax.

[wolfie001]

20. One of their CEOs was rabidly pro-tRUMP

Don't really know if he's still around but the fat orange imbecile sure fucked up this tRUMPian company.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

23. Neal Katyal-Tariffs were illegal. Now Trump wants to delay refunds. (gift link)

The government said small businesses would be made whole. It’s time to pay up.

Link to tweet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/02/24/tariff-refunds-trump-supreme-court/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzcxOTA5MjAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzczMjg3OTk5LCJpYXQiOjE3NzE5MDkyMDAsImp0aSI6IjMwOTIxOGViLTE1NjktNGI5ZC05NzgyLTJjYTYzMzI4MTZhYiIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9vcGluaW9ucy8yMDI2LzAyLzI0L3RhcmlmZi1yZWZ1bmRzLXRydW1wLXN1cHJlbWUtY291cnQvIn0.F5PZ4_XEN8jKe4-ZTDxDqDWUuDtSFwfaTMlCmoWv3Vo

When the U.S. government makes a representation in federal court, it is not a talking point. It is a commitment.

In the landmark tariff litigation decided by the Supreme Court on Friday, that commitment was explicit: to give refunds if President Donald Trump’s tariffs were declared illegal.

On behalf of small businesses, the Liberty Justice Center and I challenged the tariffs. Across the country, businesses paid billions in unlawful duties. At several points along the way, government lawyers assured judges that there would be no “harm” in allowing tariff collection to continue during the appeal process because duties later invalidated could be refunded — with interest. Businesses would be made whole. Indeed, after I argued the case before the Supreme Court on Nov. 5, the government doubled down on that promise in filings in lower court.

Those assurances carried weight. They were likely central to the appeals courts’ willingness to allow tariff collection to continue while the litigation advanced. Judges relied on the government’s representation that the injury was temporary and repairable. And our small businesses relied on it.....

On Tuesday, I am launching a task force composed of trade law experts and litigators to get these refunds back. We will be filing legal papers that detail the course of action ahead. The lower courts retain authority to enforce their judgments, including a permanent injunction granted on May 28. The Supreme Court has the power to ensure that its mandate is executed. And customs law provides mechanisms for refunding unlawfully collected duties through the liquidation and reliquidation process administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection — that is, the agency’s routine final calculation and, when necessary, recalculation of duties owed on imported goods. Courts order such refunds regularly in trade cases.....

Courts rely on the credibility of the U.S. I saw this when serving as the federal government’s top courtroom lawyer. When government lawyers tell judges that there is no harm because refunds can always be issued with interest, courts take that promise seriously. If those assurances dissolve into years of delay, institutional trust erodes. Interest does not restore lost opportunity. It does not retroactively fund the hiring that never occurred or the inventory that was never purchased.

Our constitutional structure depends not only on courts issuing decisions but also on the executive branch faithfully executing them. Compliance should not be grudging. It should be immediate and complete.

In court, the government said businesses would be made whole.

I remember the Federal government promising the courts that the tariffs would be refunded in order to be able to stay the initial court ruling and appeal this case.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. Trump Faces Tough Legal Landscape to Oppose Tariff Refunds

Neal Katyal, Federal Express, Costco and others are already suing for their tariff refunds. In order to appeal the initial trial court ruling that the tariffs were illegal, the trump DOJ represented to the courts that the tariffs would be refunded to the parties if these tariffs were found to be illegal. Those representations will be used in this upcoming litigation on the refunding of these illegal tariffs.

Link to tweet

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-faces-tough-legal-landscape-to-oppose-tariff-refunds

The Trump administration is likely to face legal obstacles if it argues against refunds for the tariffs struck down by the US Supreme Court — thanks to statements by Justice Department lawyers.

In a 6-3 decision last week, the justices declared President Donald Trump’s use of an economic emergency powers law illegal. The majority was silent on whether the companies that paid more than $170 billion in contested duties will get their money back, sending the issue to lower court to sort out. Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned in a dissent that a refund process was “likely to be a ‘mess.’”

Trump immediately signaled his administration might oppose payouts, saying, “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”

Legal wrangling over refunds won’t play out on a clean slate, however. Over the past year, the Justice Department took positions before the US Court of International Trade that narrowed its paths to object going forward.

After the trade court initially declared the tariffs unlawful last May, the administration cited the availability of refunds as a reason for judges to let officials keep collecting tariffs for months amid the legal fight.

Government lawyers wrote in court filings last summer that plaintiffs whose cases went to the Supreme Court “will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest” if they won. The Justice Department hasn’t used the same definitive language in later cases, but trade lawyers said judges are likely to hold the administration to those promises.....

A three-judge panel of the trade court made clear in a December ruling that it would hold the administration to its word. The judges denied a request by companies to pause the customs process until the Supreme Court ruled, explaining that they didn’t need to intervene given the government’s assurances.

The government couldn’t take “a contrary position” after it had “convinced” the trade court to accept that importers “will be able to receive refunds” even if their tariff obligations became final, the panel wrote. A legal principle known as “judicial estoppel would prevent the government from taking an inconsistent approach,” the judges said.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

25. We will fight tooth and nail for them if the federal govt tries to hold that money back."

Link to tweet