U.S. seafood import firms Mark Foods and Bristol Seafood have filed lawsuits over U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff program, following the lead of fellow seafood companies Netuno USA and Bumble Bee.
New York City, New York, U.S.A.-based Mark Foods and Portland, Maine, U.S.A.-based Bristol Seafood filed separate lawsuits against the U.S. government, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott in the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Similar to the Netuno and Bumble Bee complaints, Mark’s and Bristol’s complaints detailed how Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as the legal justification for implementing tariffs against such countries as China, Mexico, Canada, and others is illegal and does not authorize assessment of duties in the circumstances cited.
In fact, three U.S. courts have ruled that IEEPA does not grant the government the authority to levy tariffs, the Bristol complaint pointed out.
Both Bristol and Mark Foods said they had paid duties on imports but did not reveal the total they have paid since the duties were implemented. Additionally, the companies did not respond to SeafoodSource’s requests for comment.
All of these lawsuits have come as the U.S. Supreme Court is actively hearing a case that claims Trump’s use of IEEPA as a method of enacting tariffs is unlawful, following U.S. legislators in both the House of Representatives and Senate filing an amicus brief opposing the tariffs on 27 October.
They also come as the entries for which suppliers have paid tariffs are soon to liquidate and become final as a matter of law by 31 January 2026.
If the Supreme Court rules against the tariff program, the companies that have filed complaints will likely be the first in line to receive refunds, Vinicius Adam, an attorney with VAdam Law in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which filed the complaint for Netuno USA, told SeafoodSource.
There is potentially billions of dollars, “with interest,” that CBP will need to refund to companies that have been impacted, Adam said in November.
“Does the government have a mechanism to refund billions of dollars? They don’t. The companies would have to file their protests, and then CBP would have to refund the money,” he said.
Likewise, Mark Foods said in its complaint that this separate action is necessary because even if the IEEPA duties and underlying executive orders are deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court, import firms that have paid “are not guaranteed a refund for those unlawfully collected tariffs in the absence of their own judgment from this Court.”
“This action is necessary at this time because it is uncertain whether Defendants will issue refunds on liquidated entries even if the Supreme Court affirms the holding of the Federal Circuit,” Mark Foods added. "Plaintiff seeks relief from the impending liquidations to ensure that its right to a complete refund is not jeopardized.”
Adam said many other seafood importers are “weighing all their options,” including filing similar complaints, and added that he believes the Supreme Court will issue its ruling some time in the first quarter of 2026.
“I am confident that the Court will issue a well-reasoned opinion that recognizes the significance of the issues and the implications,” he said.
