Consumer Watchdog Asks Court to Halt New Tariffs as Refund System Leaves Consumers Behind

Brief says tariff order exceeds Section 301 and warns future importer refunds will not make consumers whole

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- The tariff refund system leaves consumers behind, Consumer Watchdog warned in asking the U.S. Court of International Trade to halt the Trump administration's new tariffs of 10 or 12.5 percent on 99 percent of products imported from 60 economies comprising 86 countries. The group's amicus curiae brief argues that the sweeping tariff order exceeds Section 301 and warns that, even if the tariffs are later invalidated, there is substantial risk refunds will largely go to importers while consumers who paid higher prices will have no direct path to recover their money.

The brief, filed in In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court No. 26-cv-03555-3JP, supports the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the agency record. USTR imposed the tariffs based on its contention that the covered economies failed to enact and enforce bans on imports of goods produced with forced labor.

The brief was principally authored by Alan B. Morrison, Adjunct Professor at George Washington University Law School, working with international trade attorney R. Will Planert of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP and Consumer Watchdog's legal team.

"A law written to address particular unfair trade practices is not a blank check to tax virtually every product entering the United States," said William Pletcher, Litigation Director of Consumer Watchdog. "Tariffs are collected at the border, but families pay them at checkout—and importer refunds generally do not reach consumers."

Download Consumer Watchdog's amicus brief here.

Refunds Leave Consumers Behind

The filing draws a direct lesson from the roughly $165 billion in emergency tariffs invalidated in Learning Resources: importers of record can seek direct government refunds, but consumers and downstream businesses have no comparable process—even when they paid the tariffs through higher prices.

The addendum collects evidence that U.S. consumers and businesses bore the overwhelming share of the 2025 tariffs. Some sellers have voluntarily returned separately itemized tariff charges or promised other customer benefits, and consumers have filed class actions seeking refunds. But those remedies depend on a company's voluntary choice or costly, uncertain litigation—not the direct government process available to importers.

"The addendum shows that importers have a direct path to the government, while consumers must depend on a company's voluntary decision or undertake costly, uncertain litigation," said Hannah Bruhns, a UCLA School of Law student and volunteer legal clerk with Consumer Watchdog, and part of the team that çhelped prepare the addendum. "Some consumers may recover something, but there is no automatic process that reliably returns tariff costs buried in the prices families paid."

Court Should Stop Tariff Collection During Any Appeal

The brief asks the Court of International Trade to set aside the tariff determinations and stop their enforcement. If the government appeals, Consumer Watchdog proposes no more than a 14-day stay to seek relief from the Federal Circuit. Stopping collection would protect consumers and avoid another massive refund process; if the government later prevailed, it could collect the reinstated duties using existing import records.

"The critical time for protecting consumers is when the defendants seek a stay of the vacatur order pending appeal," Morrison wrote in the brief.

Why the Tariffs Are Unlawful

Section 301 requires USTR to identify a specific unreasonable or discriminatory trade practice, show harm to U.S. commerce, and tailor its response. The brief argues USTR instead applied the same tariff theory to nearly all products from 86 countries. "The notion that 86 countries have all harmed United States exporters by the same means defies logic and common sense," Morrison wrote. "USTR misreads Section 301(b) to enable it to do on an international wholesale basis what the statute requires to be done on a country-by-country and product-by-product retail basis." Ryan Mellino, staff attorney at Consumer Watchdog, added: "Section 301 is a targeted trade-remedy law, not an all-purpose license to impose the same tariff theory on 86 countries and nearly every product Americans buy. The government must connect its response to the particular conduct causing harm and stay within the limits Congress imposed."

Consumer Watchdog's Tariff Briefing:

• May 23, 2025 — Northern District of California: State of California v. Trump — Argued that IEEPA did not authorize presidential tariffs or unlimited delegated tariff power. Read the brief.
• July 7, 2025 — Ninth Circuit: Newsom v. Trump — Defended that challenge on appeal. Read the brief.
• July 7, 2025 — Federal Circuit: V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump — Urged affirmance of the decision setting aside the IEEPA tariffs. Read the brief.
• July 29, 2025 — D.C. Circuit: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump — Supported the ruling against the tariffs and documented the administration's shifting orders. Read the brief.
• October 8, 2025 — U.S. Supreme Court: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. — Urged rejection of unlimited presidential tariff authority; the Court agreed in February 2026. Read the brief.
• March 26, 2026 — U.S. Supreme Court: HMTX Industries, LLP v. United States — Challenged USTR's sevenfold expansion of China tariffs under Sections 301 and 307. Read the brief.

About Consumer Watchdog

Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest organization dedicated to protecting consumers from unfair business practices and unlawful government action. The organization frequently appears before state and federal courts to defend consumer rights and constitutional accountability. For more information, visit consumerwatchdog.org.

SOURCE Consumer Watchdog