Amazon.com Inc was sued on Friday (May 15, 2026) by consumers seeking refunds for costs passed on to ​them in the form of higher prices as a result of ‌tariffs the U.S. Supreme Court later concluded had been unlawfully ​imposed by President Donald Trump.

Consumers in a proposed ⁠class action filed in federal court in Seattle alleged that the e-commerce giant collected hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariff costs by ‌raising prices on imported goods before the Supreme Court had ruled.

The U.S. Supreme Court in February concluded ‌in a 6-3 decision that Mr. Trump overstepped his authority ‌by ⁠using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose ⁠his sweeping tariffs.

Thousands of companies have begun to seek billions of dollars in refunds from the government following the ruling.

But Amazon has not, which the ​lawsuit alleged was “not because it ‌lacks a legal basis to do so, but because it seeks to curry favour with Mr. Trump by allowing the federal government to retain the funds.”

“The problem is that the ‌funds Amazon is using to stay in the President’s good ​graces do not belong to Amazon,” the lawsuit says. “These funds were wrongfully taken from consumers to cover ⁠IEEPA Tariffs that have since been invalidated.”

The lawsuit asserts claims of unjust enrichment and violation of Washington state’s consumer-protection law.

Amazon did ‌not respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit follows several earlier cases filed by consumers accusing companies ranging from Costco to Nike to FedEx of failing to pass on tariff refunds to consumers.

Unlike companies that imported goods, consumers are not eligible to seek tariff refunds from the government for the higher ‌costs they incurred while they were in effect, Friday’s (May 15) lawsuit notes.

To support ​its claim that politics were behind Amazon’s actions, the lawsuit notes that in April 2025, the company ⁠faced White House blowback after a report that it was considering displaying ⁠how much of a product’s cost came from the IEEPA tariffs.

Amazon denied the story and said it never ‌considered listing tariff prices on its main retail site. But the report prompted Mr. Trump to call Amazon Executive Chairman ​Jeff Bezos to complain, the lawsuit says.

The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has ruled that the 10% temporary tariff President Donald Trump imposed on all U.S. trade partners, including India, was “unauthorised by law”, striking a further blow to his attempts at using tariffs as tools to advance his policy priorities. 

However, while the ruling sets a precedent, it does not translate into immediate relief for exporters around the world. The court on Thursday (May 7, 2026) provided relief to only the plaintiffs — two small companies in the U.S. and Washington State — with the tariff remaining on all other importers. 

The U.S. government is expected to appeal the judgment at the federal level, which could extend the process by several months. 

Mr. Trump had, on February 24, 2026, used Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% tariff on imports from around the world for 150 days. This was in response to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down his country-wise reciprocal tariffs, which were based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977.

Limited relief

The CIT, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that, although the U.S. Congress had originally passed Section 122 to give the President the authority to address balance of payments deficits, this did not include the trade deficit and current account deficits cited by Mr. Trump when he levied the 10% tariff.

The court ordered the U.S. government to stop collecting the tariff from the plaintiffs — Washington State, spice importer Burlap & Barrel, and toy maker Basic Fun! — and to refund the amount collected. It stopped short, however, of ordering the same for all U.S. importers. 

“The CIT did not issue a universal injunction or give relief to anyone other than the named plaintiffs,” Peter E. Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown Law School’s Institute of International Economic Law, said in a social media post following the ruling. 

“Other companies may well now decide to sue, though many will probably hold off while this decision winds its way through the appeals process,” Mr. Harrell noted. 

Tariffs still a threat

This ruling comes days after the U.S. government started paying refunds to U.S. importers who had paid the reciprocal tariffs that were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court.

The U.S. government has also launched a number of investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 regarding fair trade practice and labour rights violations by several of the U.S.’s trade partners, including India. If these investigations find violations, they would empower the U.S. to once again levy tariffs on the relevant countries. 

The investigations are expected to conclude in July, which is when the 10% tariff is set to expire.

Impact on trade deal

Sources in the government said the CIT ruling strengthened India’s negotiating position with regard to the Interim Agreement on trade between India and the U.S., as well as a larger Bilateral Trade Agreement between the two countries. However, they added that the matter was too nascent for any real impact to be felt on negotiations.

The two countries announced the Interim Agreement in February, under which India was to receive lower tariffs than its competitor nations. However, the signing of the deal was indefinitely postponed following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the reciprocal tariffs. 

While negotiations have resumed, the deal currently lies in limbo, with Indian government officials publicly saying that it cannot go ahead until the U.S. finalises the tariffs it is levying on other countries. That is, India is still pushing for preferential access over its competition, which can be established only once all tariffs are known.

A federal court has ruled against the new global tariffs that U.S. President Donald Trump imposed after a stinging loss at the Supreme Court.

A split three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade in New York on Thursday (May 7, 2026) found the 10% global tariffs were illegal after small businesses sued.

The court ruled 2-1 that Mr. Trump overstepped the tariff power that Congress had allowed the President under the law. The tariffs are “invalid” and “unauthorised by law”, the majority wrote.

Tariffs in trouble: On the U.S. Supreme Court and Donald Trump

The third judge on the panel found the law allows the President more leeway on tariffs.

If the administration appeals Thursday’s (May 7, 2026) decision, as expected, it would first turn to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, based in Washington, and then, potentially, the Supreme Court.

At issue are temporary 10% worldwide tariffs the Trump administration imposed after the Supreme Court in February struck down even broader double-digit tariffs the President had imposed last year on almost every country on Earth. The new tariffs, invoked under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, were set to expire July 24.

The court’s decision directly applied only to three of the plaintiffs — the state of Washington and two businesses, spice company Burlap & Barrel and toy company Basic Fun! “It’s not clear” whether other businesses would have to continue to pay the tariffs, said Jeffrey Schwab, director of litigation at the libertarian Liberty Justice Center, which represented the two companies.

“We fought back today and we won, and we’re extremely excited,” Jay Foreman, CEO of Basic Fun!, told reporters Thursday (May 7, 2026).

The ruling marked another legal setback for the Trump administration, which has attempted to shield the U.S. economy behind a wall of import taxes. Last year, Mr. Trump invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare the nation’s longstanding trade deficit a national emergency, justifying sweeping global tariffs.

The Supreme Court ruled February 28 that IEEPA did not authorise the tariffs. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to establish taxes, including tariffs, though lawmakers can delegate tariff power to the President.

Mr. Trump is widely expected to try to replace the tariffs that have been struck down. The administration is conducting two investigations that could end in more tariffs.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is looking into whether 16 U.S. trading partners — including China, the European Union and Japan — are overproducing goods, driving down prices and putting U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage. It is also investigating whether 60 economies — from Nigeria to Norway and accounting for 99% of U.S. imports — do enough to prohibit the trade in products created by forced labour.

The United States on Thursday (May 7, 2026) imposed sanctions on Iraq’s deputy Oil Minister over support to Iran, as Washington puts intense pressure on the incoming government to sever links.

The deputy Minister, Ali Maarij al-Bahadli, “abused his government position to divert Iraqi oil in support of the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said.

“As part of a scheme to evade sanctions, Iranian oil was fraudulently mixed with Iraqi oil and sold for Iran’s benefit,” he said.

The United States has unilateral sanctions against Iranian oil, seeking to punish any country or company that buys it.

Iran, led by Shia clerics, has had close relations with many key players in Shia-majority Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.

The United States has been escalating pressure on the Iraqi state to break off alleged cooperation with armed Iraqi Shia groups linked to Iran.

Tariffs in trouble: On the U.S. Supreme Court and Donald Trump

Since the United States and Israel attacked Iran on February 28, armed groups have hit U.S. facilities in Iraq more than 600 times before a ceasefire was announced, according to a U.S. official.

The official said that the United States was looking for “concrete actions” from Iraq to cast aside the armed groups before Washington can resume full cooperation.

During the Iran war, the United States notably stopped shipments to Iraq of cash from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which has handled the country’s oil revenue in an arrangement dating from the U.S. invasion.

U.S. President Donald Trump has congratulated and voiced hope for working with Iraq’s Prime Minister-designate Ali al-Zaidi, who was selected by the ruling coalition after heavy U.S. pressure against the frontrunner.

A refund system for businesses that paid tariffs which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled President Donald Trump imposed without the constitutional authority to do so is scheduled to launch on Monday (April 20, 2026).

Importers and their brokers will be able to begin claiming refunds through an online portal beginning at 8 a.m., according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency administering the system.

The Trump administration on Wednesday (March 11, 2026) opened a new trade investigation into manufacturing in foreign countries — an effort that comes after the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s previous use of tariffs by declaring an economic emergency.

Mr. Trump and his team have made clear that they’re seeking to replace the hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues after the Supreme Court’s February ruling by using different laws to establish new tariffs.

New investigation on tariff

In this case, the administration is starting investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which could eventually lead to new import taxes. But U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, in a Wednesday call with reporters, said he didn’t want to prejudge the outcome of the process.

“The policy remains the same — the tools may change depending on, you know, the vagaries of courts and other things,” said Mr. Greer, stressing that the goal was to protect American jobs.

The start of the process to fully replace Mr. Trump’s prior tariffs could invite a return of much of the drama that rattled the global economy last year.

The since-overturned tariffs led to new frameworks with U.S. trade partners — and it’s unclear what impact a new set of import taxes could have on those agreements. Mr. Greer described the trade frameworks as standing on their own and suggested they were separate from the new investigation.

This new set of tariffs could play out against the backdrop of a war in Iran and midterm elections in which Democrats are running against Trump’s Republican allies by emphasising that the public is owed tariff refunds following the Supreme Court decision.

Mr. Greer said that the investigation would examine excess industrial capacity and government backing that could give foreign companies an unfair advantage over U.S. companies.

The entities subject to the investigation include China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, South Korea, Vietnam, the self-governing island of Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan and India.

Section 301 investigation

The government is looking for what it deems to be persistent trade surpluses with the U.S. and policies such as subsidies and the suppression of workers’ wages, among other factors.

The administration is also rolling out a Section 301 investigation to ban the importing of goods made by forced labour.

Mr. Greer indicated that there could be additional Section 301 investigations over issues such as digital service taxes, pharmaceutical drug pricing and ocean pollution, among other possibilities. The Commerce Department has separate trade investigations under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act.

There are timeline pressures for the administration to complete its investigations. The administration has imposed 10% tariffs on foreign-made goods under section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, but those expire after 150 days on July 24. Mr. Trump said he planned to raise that import tax to 15%, but he has yet to do so.

Mr. Greer said the administration is “keying off” the new investigation based on the 150-day deadline, saying that the goal is to bring “potential options” to Mr. Trump as soon as possible.

Mr. Greer said the investigations would be separate from the trade frameworks announced last year by Mr. Trump that set baseline tariff rates, which led to 15% rates charged on goods from the European Union, Japan and South Korea, among other places, that have since been overturned by the Supreme Court. Still, he suggested that the frameworks could play a factor.

“My sense is that these countries continue to want to deal, and President Trump continues to want the deal,” Mr. Greer said, adding that since tariffs are in play the commitments that the countries have made and the implementation of the frameworks would be considered as they “bump” against the demands of the Section 301 process.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the reciprocal tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump on various countries, including India, several other tariffs remain in place that still have an impact on various sectors, trade analysts and export data show.

The Supreme Court on February 20 found that Mr. Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on other countries exceeded his authority as President, and so struck the tariffs down.

Impact on trade deals

Trade experts have said that this will result in countries that already have trade deals with the U.S. to re-examine them, and also called for India to do the same regarding its Interim Agreement that is yet to be signed. 

“The ruling invalidates country-specific “reciprocal tariffs” and fentanyl-linked duties imposed on imports from major trading partners,” Ajay Srivastava, founder of the think-tank Global Trade Research Initiative said. “The decision effectively renders recent trade deals initiated or concluded by the United States with the UK, Japan, the EU, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and India one-sided and useless. Partner countries may now find reasons to dump these deals.”

The Hindu has reached out to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry seeking a comment on whether India would be re-examining the Agreement. This report will be updated if and when a response is received. 

Other tariffs in play

Soon after the Supreme Court’s ruling, Mr. Trump said that he would be imposing a baseline 10% tariff on imports from other countries under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This section and Act empowers the President to “address certain fundamental international payment problems through surcharges and other special import restrictions”, according to a factsheet issued by the White House.

Under this, the U.S. would impose a 10% ad valorem duty on imports into the U.S. for a period of 150 days starting from February 24. 

Steel and aluminium still hit

The U.S. also has other tariffs in place, such as those under Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

“It would need to be seen how President Trump could still use other laws like Section 232 to enhance/keep tariffs for covered products outside of this decision,” Krishan Arora, Partner and Indirect Tax and India Investment Roadmap Leader at Grant Thornton Bharat said.

Under the Section 232 tariffs, the U.S. has imposed a 50% tariff on imports of steel and aluminium. These tariffs will remain, and data shows they could continue to have an impact on India. 

Aluminium and steel exports, taken together, form the fourth-largest group of exports for India to the U.S. Further, since electronics and pharmaceuticals are exempt from the tariffs, aluminium and steel are the second-largest export group on which tariffs are applicable, following precious and semi-precious stones. 

Exports to the U.S. of these items fell nearly 66% in December 2025, as per the latest trade data, in response to the tariffs. 

De minimis tariffs also still remain

The U.S. in August 2025 suspended the ‘de minimis’ exemptions it had granted imports of items valued at less than $800 per person per day. This meant that the import of such items, ranging from textiles to toys, cosmetics, and electronic accessories, would attract the country-specific duties based on their origin.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision on February 20, Mr. Trump issued an executive order saying that he has determined “it is still necessary and appropriate to suspend duty-free de minimis treatment… including for shipments sent through the international postal network”.  

This has an impact on India because a number of small exporters and e-commerce players used to use this de minimis route to send items to customers in the U.S. duty-free. 

At the centre of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court verdict striking down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs is an Indian-origin lawyer who argued before America’s highest court about the illegality of the levies.

Neal Katyal, the son of Indian immigrants and the former Acting Solicitor General of the United States under President Barack Obama, argued the consequential tariff case on behalf of small businesses and won.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects tariffs LIVE

“Victory,” Mr. Katyal posted on X shortly after the Supreme Court verdict came in on Friday (February 20, 2026).

Mr. Katyal, in an interview to MS Now, said “One of the great things about the American system is what just happened today. I was able to go to court — the son of immigrants — able to go to court and say on behalf of American small businesses, ‘Hey, this President is acting illegally.'”

“I was able to present my case, have them ask really hard questions at me, it was a really intense oral argument and at the end of it, they voted and we won,” he said.

“That is something so extraordinary about this country. The idea that we have a system that self-corrects, that allows us to say ‘You might be the most powerful man in the world but you still can’t break the Constitution. That to me is what today is about,” Mr. Katyal added.

Mr. Katyal was born in 1970 in Chicago to a paediatrician mother and engineer father, both of whom immigrated from India.

He is a partner in the Washington DC office of Milbank LLP and a member of the firm’s Litigation & Arbitration Group.

In a statement following the verdict, he said the U.S. Supreme Court stood up for the rule of law and Americans everywhere. “Its message was simple: Presidents are powerful, but our Constitution is more powerful still. In America, only Congress can impose taxes on the American people. The U.S. Supreme Court gave us everything we asked for in our legal case. Everything.”

Mr. Katyal expressed gratitude for the leadership of the Liberty Justice Centre, who “led the fight when others wouldn’t”.

“This case has always been about the presidency, not any one president. It has always been about separation of powers, and not the politics of the moment. I’m gratified to see our Supreme Court, which has been the bedrock of our government for 250 years, protect our most fundamental values,” he said.

According to his profile on the Milbank website, Mr. Katyal focuses on appellate and complex litigation and has argued 54 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.

He has also served as a law professor for over two decades at Georgetown University Law Centre, “where he was one of the youngest professors to have received tenure and a chaired professorship in the university’s history” and has served as a visiting professor at Harvard and Yale law schools.

A graduate of Yale Law School, Mr. Katyal clerked for Guido Calabresi of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as well as for Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court. He also served in the Deputy Attorney General’s Office at the Justice Department as National Security Advisor and as Special Assistant to the Deputy Attorney General during 1998-1999.

Mr. Katyal is the recipient of the “highest award given to a civilian” by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Edmund Randolph Award, which was presented to him by the Attorney General in 2011, his profile said.

The Chief Justice of the United States appointed him in 2011 and 2014 to the Advisory Committee on Federal Appellate Rules.

In a post on X dated November 4, 2025, Mr. Katyal posted a photograph of a traditional ‘Kada’ (bangle) placed on a ‘Brief for Private Respondents’ related to the Supreme Court tariff case against Trump. “Thinking of my father first and foremost, who came to this land of freedom….May the Constitution win,” he wrote.

Governor J.B. Pritzker sent U.S. President Donald Trump an invoice on Friday (February 21, 2026) demanding nearly $9 billion in tariff refunds for Illinois families after the Supreme Court ruled the President’s much-touted levies are illegal.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump tariffs LIVE

Mr. Pritzker urged the White House to “cut the check” after justices ruled 6-3 that Mr. Trump had exceeded his authority by invoking emergency powers to impose tariffs that reshaped global trade and pushed up prices at home.

“Your tariff taxes wreaked havoc on farmers, enraged our allies and sent grocery prices through the roof,” the Democrat wrote, warning further legal action could follow if compensation was not forthcoming.

In the letter, shared with U.S. media, Mr. Pritzker demanded about $1,700 for every Illinois household — the amount Yale University experts said the average U.S. household would pay on tariffs last year.

Mr. Pritzker wasn’t alone in seeking payback — both political and literal — for widespread consumer woes.

Earlier on Friday (February 20, 2026), California Governor Gavin Newsom said the money Mr. Trump’s tariffs had raised came from U.S. voters’ pockets — and should be refunded.

“Time to pay the piper, Donald. These tariffs were nothing more than an illegal cash grab that drove up prices and hurt working families, so you could wreck longstanding alliances and extort them,” he said.

“Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest. Cough up!”

Mr. Pritzker and Mr. Newsom are widely seen as potential Democratic contenders in the 2028 presidential race.

Whose money?

Their demands add a populist flourish to a complicated legal and economic reality.

Announced with fanfare last April, Mr. Trump’s tariffs have raised more than $130 billion from importers, with a significant proportion of that extra cost passed on to consumers through higher prices.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has expressed skepticism that ordinary Americans will see direct compensation.

The scale of potential repayments is vast. The influential Penn-Wharton Budget Model has estimated that refunds could total $175 billion, though it’s unclear who would ultimately receive the money.

Mr. Trump himself acknowledged that any refund process could take years.

That’s a harsh shift for those who may have hoped for a tariff “dividend” check after the 79-year-old Republican repeatedly said last year that millions of Americans would get “a little rebate” because “we have so much money coming in.”

In his dissent, Trump-appointed conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted Friday’s (February 20, 2026) ruling “says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”

New York’s Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, called the Trump administration’s tariffs “an unlawful backdoor tax on hardworking families, farmers and small businesses, raising prices on everything from groceries to building materials” — though she did not demand refunds.

U.S. trading partners that have reached tariff deals with President Donald Trump’s administration will now also face a 10% duty, despite higher levels they may have agreed on previously, the White House said on Friday (February 20, 2026).

This comes as the Supreme Court struck down Mr. Trump’s country-specific tariffs imposed using emergency economic powers.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump tariffs LIVE

“This is, however, only temporary as the administration will be pursuing other legal authorities to implement more appropriate or pre-negotiated tariff rates,” a White House official said.

Trump signs global 10% tariff order

Mr. Trump on Friday (February 20, 2026) signed off on a global 10% tariff “on all Countries,” hours after the Supreme Court ruled his levies on imports are illegal.

“It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately,” the Republican leader wrote on his Truth Social platform.