The short answer is yes — Americans are already suing, though the legal path to putting money back in consumers’ pockets is far from straightforward. After the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s IEEPA-based tariffs on February 20, 2026, in a decisive 6-3 ruling, the administration pivoted within hours to an obscure provision of the Trade Act of 1974 that had never been used in its 50-year history. The result has been a cascade of lawsuits, a 60-cent-per-gallon spike in gas prices, and a constitutional showdown over who actually holds the power to tax imports in the United States.
At least five proposed class action lawsuits have already been filed by consumers against companies including Costco, EssilorLuxottica (maker of Ray-Ban), and FedEx, seeking refunds for inflated prices tied to the tariffs. Meanwhile, 24 state attorneys general and two governors sued on March 5, 2026, to block the new tariffs entirely. But legal experts warn that the road from courtroom victory to consumer refund is riddled with complications — the roughly $180 billion collected under the now-unconstitutional IEEPA tariffs would go back to importers, not shoppers.
Table of Contents
- Can Americans Actually Sue Over Tariffs That Bypassed Congress and Drove Up Gas Prices?
- Why the Section 122 Tariffs Face the Same Constitutional Problems as IEEPA
- The 60-Cent Gas Price Spike and Who It Hits Hardest
- What Consumer Class Actions Have Been Filed and How to Join Them
- Why Getting a Refund Is Harder Than It Sounds
- The Constitutional Stakes Beyond Tariffs
- What Happens Next for Consumers and the Courts
- Frequently Asked Questions
Can Americans Actually Sue Over Tariffs That Bypassed Congress and Drove Up Gas Prices?
Technically, yes — but most americans won’t be suing the president directly. The consumer class actions filed so far target companies that passed tariff costs on to customers. The Costco lawsuit, filed on March 11, 2026, in Illinois federal court, argues that members are owed refunds for higher prices they paid as a direct result of tariffs the Supreme Court has already declared unconstitutional. The legal theory is straightforward: if the tariffs were illegal, the price increases they caused were unjust, and consumers deserve their money back. The constitutional argument underpinning all of this goes back to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress — not the president — the power to levy taxes and tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts made this explicit in the February 20 opinion in *Learning Resources Inc.
V. Trump*, writing that “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” The 6-3 majority held that the taxing power belongs to the legislature, full stop. Legal scholars at the Peterson Institute for International Economics have argued that the same reasoning should apply to the Section 122 tariffs now in effect, since Trump is using a provision designed for temporary balance-of-payments crises as a broad trade policy tool — something it was never intended to do. The distinction matters for consumers. Suing a retailer for passing along illegal tariff costs is a well-established legal pathway. Suing the federal government for imposing those tariffs is a different beast, one being handled by state attorneys general and trade groups with the resources to take on that fight. For the average American paying more at the pump and the grocery store, the consumer class actions are the more realistic avenue — but they depend on courts first confirming that the tariffs themselves were unlawful.
Why the Section 122 Tariffs Face the Same Constitutional Problems as IEEPA
When the Supreme Court shut down the IEEPA tariffs, the Trump administration did not pause to regroup. Within hours, the president invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposing a 10% global tariff effective February 24, 2026, with promises to raise it to 15%. It was the first time Section 122 had ever been used. The provision was designed to address short-term monetary emergencies — specifically, temporary large balance-of-payments deficits — not to serve as a standing trade policy instrument. This is exactly why 24 state attorneys general, led by New York AG Letitia James, filed suit on March 5, 2026, in the U.S. Court of International Trade. Their complaint calls the Section 122 tariffs “an illegal end run around the Supreme Court.” The legal argument is that even if Section 122 gives the president some authority to impose temporary duties, using it to replicate the exact tariff regime the Court just struck down is a misuse of the statute.
Section 122 is also limited to 150 days, which means the tariffs would need to expire by late July 2026 unless Congress acts — something the administration has not publicly addressed. However, there is an important limitation here. Even if the courts strike down the Section 122 tariffs, that ruling would not automatically trigger refunds for consumers or even importers. The legal process for recovering tariff payments is separate and slow. Importers would need to file claims with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and consumers would need to pursue their own claims against retailers and manufacturers. If you paid more for gas, groceries, or electronics during the tariff period, you cannot simply file a claim with the government — you would need to join or file a lawsuit against the company that charged you.
The 60-Cent Gas Price Spike and Who It Hits Hardest
The average cost of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline has climbed more than 60 cents in the past month, driven by a combination of the tariffs and geopolitical instability related to the conflict with Iran. That national average masks significant regional variation. According to Council on Foreign Relations estimates, Northeast states that depend heavily on Canadian energy imports — Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire — could see increases of $0.20 to $0.40 per gallon specifically from the Canadian energy tariffs alone. Midwest states face even steeper potential hikes of $0.25 to $0.50 per gallon.
California Governor Gavin Newsom publicly blasted the administration on March 10, 2026, saying Trump was raising gasoline prices “with no plan and no accountability.” The political dimension is hard to ignore: Trump ran explicitly on a promise to lower gas prices, and the combination of his own tariff policies and a military confrontation with Iran has produced the opposite result. For a family driving two cars and filling up weekly, a 60-cent-per-gallon increase translates to roughly $60 to $75 more per month in fuel costs alone. The broader household impact extends well beyond the gas pump. The Yale Budget Lab estimated that the tariffs cost the average american household approximately $1,000 per year, while the Tax Foundation puts the figure closer to $1,500 per household for 2026. These costs show up in everything from grocery bills to electronics to clothing — anywhere imported goods or imported raw materials are part of the supply chain.
What Consumer Class Actions Have Been Filed and How to Join Them
As of mid-March 2026, at least five proposed class actions have been filed by consumers seeking refunds for tariff-inflated prices. The most prominent is the Costco lawsuit filed on March 11, 2026, in Illinois federal court, where a member argues that all Costco customers are owed refunds for the higher prices they paid due to unconstitutional tariffs. Separate suits have targeted EssilorLuxottica over Ray-Ban prices and FedEx over shipping surcharges tied to tariffs. The tradeoff consumers face is between waiting for these class actions to play out — which could take years — and the possibility that a faster resolution comes from the political or regulatory side. Senators Tim Kaine and Raphael Warnock introduced the Reclaim Trade Powers Act on March 11, 2026, which would repeal Section 122 and end the tariffs legislatively.
If Congress acts, tariff costs stop accumulating immediately, but it does nothing to refund what consumers have already paid. If the class actions succeed, consumers might recover some of their losses, but the process is slow, attorneys take a cut, and individual payouts in consumer class actions are often modest relative to the actual harm. For anyone who wants to participate, the standard approach is to watch for class action notices from the cases already filed. If a class is certified and you are a member — for example, if you are a Costco member who shopped during the tariff period — you will typically be notified and given the option to join or opt out. Opting out preserves your right to sue individually, but few consumers find it worthwhile to pursue individual claims over diffuse price increases.
Why Getting a Refund Is Harder Than It Sounds
The biggest misconception in the tariff refund debate is that the Supreme Court ruling means money flows back to consumers. It does not. The roughly $180 billion collected under the now-struck-down IEEPA tariffs was paid by importers — the businesses that brought goods into the country — not by individual shoppers. Any refund process would begin with those importers filing claims with Customs and Border Protection. Whether importers would then pass savings back to consumers is entirely voluntary and, based on historical precedent, unlikely to happen automatically. This is a critical limitation that consumer advocates have flagged.
Even in the best-case scenario where courts order refunds and importers receive their money back, the chain from importer to wholesaler to retailer to consumer involves multiple intermediaries, each of which absorbed and passed along costs differently. A retailer that raised prices by 8% in response to a 10% tariff is not going to issue an 8% rebate just because the importer got a refund. The consumer class actions attempt to short-circuit this problem by going directly after the retailers, but they face the challenge of proving exactly how much of a given price increase was attributable to tariffs versus other factors like inflation, supply chain disruptions, or the Iran conflict’s effect on oil markets. There is also a timing problem. The Section 122 tariffs are capped at 150 days by statute. If courts do not act before that window closes, the administration could argue the issue is moot — or it could attempt to invoke yet another statutory authority. The legal whack-a-mole dynamic is itself a barrier to consumer relief, because each new legal basis for the tariffs resets the litigation clock.
The Constitutional Stakes Beyond Tariffs
What makes this fight significant beyond gas prices and grocery bills is the underlying separation-of-powers question. The Supreme Court’s February 20 ruling was the most forceful reassertion of congressional taxing authority in decades. By holding that IEEPA — a statute about national emergencies — cannot be used to impose tariffs, the Court drew a clear line: the president cannot tax imports without explicit congressional authorization.
The administration’s immediate pivot to Section 122, a statute that had never been invoked, suggests a strategy of cycling through every available statutory hook to maintain tariffs regardless of what the courts say. Legal analysts at SCOTUSblog and the Peterson Institute have noted that this dynamic could force the Supreme Court to revisit the broader question of how much trade authority Congress can delegate to the executive branch. If Section 122 falls, the next question becomes whether any existing statute gives the president unilateral tariff power — and if not, whether Congress will grant it.
What Happens Next for Consumers and the Courts
The next few months will be decisive. The state attorneys general lawsuit in the Court of International Trade could produce a preliminary injunction blocking the Section 122 tariffs before they reach their 150-day expiration in late July. The Reclaim Trade Powers Act introduced by Senators Kaine and Warnock offers a legislative path, though its chances of passing a divided Congress are uncertain.
Meanwhile, the consumer class actions will move through discovery and class certification, a process that typically takes 12 to 18 months before any resolution. For consumers, the practical reality is that relief — if it comes — will be delayed. Gas prices, grocery bills, and the cost of imported goods will remain elevated for the foreseeable future. The most immediate impact may come not from the courts but from the 150-day statutory limit on Section 122 tariffs, which would force them to expire by late July 2026 unless the administration finds another legal basis to continue them or Congress steps in.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I personally sue President Trump for raising gas prices?
You cannot sue the president personally for policy decisions made in office. However, you can join consumer class actions against companies that passed illegal tariff costs on to you, and state attorneys general are suing to block the tariffs on your behalf.
Will I get a refund for the higher prices I already paid?
Not automatically. The $180 billion collected under IEEPA tariffs would be refunded to importers, not consumers. Consumer class actions like the Costco lawsuit seek to recover overcharges directly from retailers, but those cases will take time to resolve.
How much are the tariffs costing my household?
The Yale Budget Lab estimates approximately $1,000 per year for the average household. The Tax Foundation puts the figure closer to $1,500 for 2026. The actual amount depends on your spending patterns and where you live.
When do the Section 122 tariffs expire?
Section 122 limits tariffs to 150 days, which means the current 10% global tariff should expire by late July 2026 unless Congress acts to extend or replace it, or the administration finds another legal authority.
How do I join the Costco class action lawsuit?
At this stage, the lawsuit is in its early phases. If the court certifies a class, Costco members who shopped during the tariff period would typically receive a notice explaining how to participate. You do not need to do anything right now except keep your receipts and watch for updates.
Is it legal for the president to use Section 122 this way?
That is the central question in the state attorneys general lawsuit. Section 122 was designed for temporary balance-of-payments emergencies, not broad trade policy. Legal experts widely argue that using it to replicate tariffs the Supreme Court just struck down exceeds presidential authority, but the courts have not yet ruled on this specific question.