Costco Tariff Lawsuit Against Donald Trump Administration 2025, $275B Retailer Sues for Refunds

Costco filed a lawsuit on November 28, 2025, in the US Court of International Trade, demanding full refunds for tariffs paid under President Trump’s emergency powers tariffs and seeking to halt further collections. The $275 billion retailer faces a critical December 15, 2025, liquidation deadline that could permanently lock in tariff payments—even if the Supreme Court later strikes down the tariffs as unlawful. 

Costco joined dozens of companies including Revlon, Kawasaki Motors, Bumble Bee Foods, and EssilorLuxottica (Ray-Ban) filing protective lawsuits after Customs and Border Protection denied extension requests. With over $90 billion in potential refunds at stake and Supreme Court justices expressing skepticism during November 5 oral arguments, this case could reshape presidential tariff authority and determine whether thousands of businesses recover billions in import duties.

What Is the Costco Tariff Lawsuit?

Costco’s lawsuit challenges President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly every country. The case seeks two primary outcomes: (1) a court declaration that IEEPA tariffs are unlawful, and (2) guaranteed refunds for all duties Costco has already paid.

The lawsuit, filed at the US Court of International Trade on November 28, 2025, states that Congress, not the president, has the constitutional power to impose tariffs. Trump imposed global tariffs in April 2025 citing IEEPA, which grants the president power to regulate international commerce during an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

Case Details:

• Case Name: Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Customs and Border Protection, Case No. 1:25-cv-316
• Court: US Court of International Trade (Manhattan)
• Filing Date: November 28, 2025
• Defendants: United States, US Customs and Border Protection, Commissioner Rodney S. Scott
• Tariff Amount: Not specified in filing (company has not disclosed total tariff costs)
• Costco Revenue: $275.2 billion (fiscal year ending August 31, 2025)

Costco imports approximately one-third of its US sales from other countries, with less than half of those imports from China. The company sells hundreds of imported items including tires, golf balls, mangoes, salmon, and electronics under both name brands and its Kirkland Signature private label.

Why Did Costco File This Lawsuit Now?

Costco’s lawsuit warns that even if the Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s tariffs, importers are not guaranteed refunds for unlawfully collected tariffs without their own court judgment. The timing relates to a critical administrative deadline that could permanently lock tariff payments.

Critical December 15, 2025, Liquidation Deadline:

US Customs and Border Protection denied Costco’s request for more time to make final calculations of tariffs owed, threatening its right to complete refunds even if the Supreme Court rules against Trump. Once import entries are “liquidated” (finalized), duty amounts become locked, and importers may lose the ability to challenge or recover those charges.

Liquidation Process Explained:

• Duties are collected when goods enter the United States
• US Customs has time to determine final tariff amounts
• “Liquidation” occurs when adjustments are made final (typically within 314 days of entry)
• Companies have 180 days after liquidation to protest and request refunds
• After protest denial, importers have 180 days to file civil action in Court of International Trade

Costco filed a motion on December 2, 2025, to combine its lawsuit with nearly two dozen other lawsuits previously filed by US companies challenging the legality of Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. The motion argues complaints are “materially identical in allegations, theories, and ultimate requested relief.”

What Tariffs Does This Lawsuit Challenge?

The Costco lawsuit specifically targets two categories of Trump administration tariffs imposed under IEEPA:

1. “Reciprocal Tariffs” (Implemented April 2, 2025):

• 10% baseline tariff on imports from nearly all countries worldwide
• Additional tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% on specific countries
• Justified by persistent trade deficits constituting “national emergency”
• Trump declared large trade deficits threaten US economic and national security

2. “Trafficking Tariffs” (Implemented February 2025):

• Additional tariffs on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico
• Justified by fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration constituting “unusual and extraordinary threat”
• Separate from other tariff actions under Section 232 (national security) or Section 301 (unfair trade practices)

Tariffs NOT Challenged:

• Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum
• Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods (predating IEEPA actions)
• Specific 50% tariffs on Brazil (Bolsonaro prosecution retaliation)
• Specific tariffs on India (Russian oil sales)

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling on IEEPA authority could indirectly affect these other tariff actions depending on the breadth of the decision.

Supreme Court Case Status: What Happened at November 5 Oral Arguments

The fate of Costco’s lawsuit—and billions in potential refunds—hinges on the Supreme Court’s decision in consolidated cases Trump v. V.O.S. Selections (No. 25-250) and Learning Resources v. Trump (No. 24-1287). The Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, about whether Trump has authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs on goods from other countries.

Lower Court Rulings (All Against Trump Administration):

• US Court of International Trade: Ruled IEEPA tariffs unlawful
• US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Affirmed in 7-4 decision (stayed ruling pending Supreme Court review)
• Federal District Court in Washington, DC: Ruled in favor of tariff challengers

The US Supreme Court appeared skeptical of the Trump Administration’s claim to broad tariff authority under IEEPA during nearly three hours of oral argument on November 5, 2025. Justices across the ideological spectrum questioned whether the 1977 emergency powers law authorizes sweeping tariffs—a power traditionally held by Congress under Article I of the Constitution.

Key Questions from Justices:

Several justices repeatedly pressed the US government to identify explicit statutory language in IEEPA that authorizes the president to impose tariffs, noting the statute does not mention “tariffs,” “duties,” or “taxes”.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that tariffs generate revenue from American citizens and thus implicate Congress’s core taxing authority rather than a mere regulatory function.

Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed Solicitor General John Sauer on Trump imposing tariffs unilaterally by citing purported international emergencies without Congress authorizing them, asking “What happens when the president simply vetoes legislation to take these powers back? So Congress as a practical matter can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president”.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Solicitor General Sauer to identify a statute other than IEEPA where the phrase “regulate importation” has been interpreted to include tariff authority; the solicitor general could not do so.

Trump Administration’s Defense:

Sauer argued the tariffs are “regulatory” in nature and any revenue raised is incidental, stating “We don’t contend that what’s being exercised here is the power to tax, it’s the power to regulate foreign commerce”.

The administration warned that invalidating the tariffs would weaken its ability to negotiate with trading partners and deprive the Treasury of billions already collected.

Decision Timeline:

• Supreme Court placed case on fast-tracked schedule
• Court has not announced when it will issue decision
• Experts predict decision could come before end of 2025 or extend to June 2026
• Tariffs remain in effect pending Supreme Court ruling

Who Else Is Suing Over Trump’s Tariffs?

Costco is among dozens of companies to file lawsuits in US trade court since late October challenging President Trump’s use of an economic emergency powers law to impose tariffs, making it one of the biggest corporate players to join a fight largely driven by small businesses.

Major Companies Filing Tariff Refund Lawsuits:

• Revlon Consumer Products Corp. (cosmetics giant)
• Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp. (motorcycles, engines, equipment)
• EssilorLuxottica (Ray-Ban eyeglasses maker)
• Bumble Bee Foods (canned seafood)
• Yokohama Tire Corporation
• Toyota USA (automotive importer)
• Learning Resources, Inc. (educational toys—lead plaintiff in Supreme Court case)
• V.O.S. Selections (wine importer—lead plaintiff in Supreme Court case)

Original Supreme Court Plaintiffs:

Learning Resources imports directly from China and other countries subject to IEEPA tariffs, claiming that attempting to pay the IEEPA tariffs in 2025 would cost it $100 million in cash, compared with $2.3 million in 2024.

V.O.S. Selections, a small wine importing business, was among the first to challenge the tariffs’ legality, arguing the president lacked authority under IEEPA.

Why Most Retailers Haven’t Sued:

While retailers have warned they continue seeing higher costs, many big operators have not pursued lawsuits like Costco—making it an outlier, as Costco risks putting the company in hot water with the White House.

Amazon learned this the hard way after it reportedly planned to display how much tariffs were contributing to some items’ prices; White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt labeled it a “hostile and political act,” sending shares lower. After Trump called Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the e-commerce giant said it would not display tariff-related price increases.

What’s at Stake: Potential Refund Amounts

If the Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s tariffs, more than $90 billion of refunds could be owed. The government collected $205 billion in tariffs through the end of October 2025.

Why Refunds Are Not Automatic:

Costco’s lawyers wrote in the complaint that the wholesale giant, along with many other importers, isn’t automatically guaranteed a refund if the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration.

Even if the Supreme Court declares IEEPA tariffs unlawful, importers face several obstacles to recovering payments:

1. Liquidation Finality: Once entries are liquidated, tariff amounts become locked unless companies filed timely protests
2. 180-Day Protest Deadline: Companies must protest within 180 days of liquidation or lose refund rights
3. Court Action Required: After protest denial, companies have 180 days to file civil action in Court of International Trade
4. Government Catastrophic Consequence Argument: The administration argues retroactive refunds of billions in tariffs would have catastrophic economic consequences, suggesting any relief should be prospective only (stopping future collections but no refunds for duties already paid)

For a company Costco’s size, not filing suit could mean “absorbing very high, potentially unrecoverable costs” if tariffs are ruled unlawful but companies can’t get their money back, according to trade compliance expert Emil Stefanutti, CEO of Gaia Dynamics.

Costco’s Specific Financial Exposure:

Costco has not disclosed the total amount paid in IEEPA tariffs. However, the company’s financial profile suggests substantial exposure:

• Annual revenue: $275.2 billion
• Approximately 33% of US sales are imported goods
• Less than half of imports from China (subject to highest tariff rates)
• Hundreds of product categories affected: electronics, appliances, tires, sporting goods, clothing, food items

How Costco Has Adapted to Tariffs

Costco has implemented multiple strategies to mitigate tariff impacts on its business and customers:

Supply Chain Adjustments:

Costco has rerouted some products to non-US markets, ordered more inventory early to get ahead of tariffs, and purchased from fewer suppliers by consolidating buying; when items get too expensive, it’s changing merchandising altogether.

In September, CFO Gary Millerchip told analysts: “We continue to work closely with our suppliers to find ways to mitigate the impact of tariffs, including moving the country of production where it makes sense and consolidating our buying efforts globally to lower the cost of goods across all our markets”.

Specific Mitigation Strategies:

• Increased local sourcing: Shifting to US-based suppliers where feasible
• Expanded Kirkland Signature brand: In-house label provides more pricing control
• Reduced supplier base: Consolidating purchases for volume discounts
• Early inventory ordering: Accelerating purchases before tariff rate increases
• Production relocation: Working with manufacturers to shift production to lower-tariff countries
• Selective pricing: Absorbing costs on key customer items while adjusting others

Example of Price Protection:

Costco kept steady prices on pineapples and bananas imported from Central and South America because they are important items to customers, absorbing tariff costs rather than passing them to consumers.

White House Response to Costco Lawsuit

White House spokesman Kush Desai responded to Costco’s lawsuit with a statement defending the tariffs’ legality:

“The economic consequences of the failure to uphold President Trump’s lawful tariffs are enormous and this suit highlights that fact. The White House looks forward to the Supreme Court’s speedy and proper resolution of this matter”.

The administration has consistently argued that:

• Trade deficits constitute genuine national emergencies
• Fentanyl trafficking justifies emergency tariff measures
• IEEPA grants the president broad authority to regulate imports
• Tariffs are regulatory tools, not revenue-raising taxes
• Invalidating tariffs would weaken US negotiating position

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that while the Supreme Court case is pending, the administration will not impose new tariffs.

Legal Arguments: Why Courts May Strike Down Tariffs

Constitutional Separation of Powers:

The Constitution vests the power to tax—including tariff authority—exclusively in Congress under Article I, Section 8. The Framers considered taxation “the most important of the authorities” held by the federal government.

Statutory Text:

IEEPA does not mention the word “tariff” or “tax,” and no other president in IEEPA’s nearly 50-year history has ever relied on it for tariff power. The statute allows the president to “regulate… importation” during declared emergencies but does not explicitly authorize tariffs.

Major Questions Doctrine:

When policies carry “vast economic and political significance,” courts require explicit congressional authorization. Tariffs affecting hundreds of billions in trade likely trigger this doctrine.

Non-Delegation Doctrine:

If Congress granted the president authority to unilaterally impose tariffs that remake the national economy without restrictions beyond the president’s power to declare an “emergency,” that grant would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

Historical Practice:

When Congress intends to delegate tariff authority, it does so with explicit language and procedural safeguards (e.g., Section 301 of Trade Act of 1974, Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act of 1962). IEEPA lacks comparable language.

Pretextual Emergency Declaration:

Critics argue Trump’s emergency declarations are pretextual. Trade deficits have existed for decades and don’t constitute sudden emergencies. Most economists and legal experts dispute that persistent trade imbalances threaten national security.

Legal Arguments: Why Courts May Uphold Tariffs

Executive Foreign Affairs Power:

The Constitution grants the president significant foreign policy authority. Tariffs serve as diplomatic tools and trade negotiation leverage.

Broad IEEPA Language:

The statute grants expansive authority to “regulate… importation” during emergencies. “Regulate” could encompass tariffs as a traditional regulatory tool.

Deference to Presidential Emergency Determinations:

Courts traditionally defer to presidential judgments about national security threats and foreign policy emergencies.

Historical Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA) Precedent:

The Supreme Court upheld President Nixon’s use of TWEA (IEEPA’s predecessor) to impose limited tariffs, though that case involved wartime context.

Congressional Acquiescence:

Congress has not formally rejected Trump’s emergency declarations despite having authority to do so through joint resolution.

Incidental Revenue:

If tariffs are primarily regulatory with revenue as incidental byproduct, they may not trigger constitutional taxation concerns.

What Should Businesses Do Now?

For Companies That Have Paid IEEPA Tariffs:

1. Identify liquidation dates for all imported goods immediately
2. Calculate total IEEPA tariff payments (separate from Section 232/301 tariffs)
3. File protective lawsuit before liquidation dates if substantial amounts are at risk
4. File administrative protests within 180 days of liquidation even without lawsuit
5. Preserve all documentation: Import records, payment receipts, tariff classifications
6. Review contracts: Determine whether tariff costs were allocated, embedded in price, or passed through to buyers; establish who retains refund rights
7. Monitor Supreme Court decision: Expected between December 2025 and June 2026

Critical Deadline Reminder:

Even if companies don’t file lawsuits, they should file administrative protests within 180 days of liquidation to preserve refund rights. After protest denial, companies have 180 days to file civil action in Court of International Trade.

Alternative Deadline:

Companies can file claims within two years of the executive action being challenged (for reciprocal tariffs, by April 2, 2027), but filing before liquidation is strongly preferred.

For Companies Still Importing Under IEEPA Tariffs:

1. Continue paying tariffs as assessed (non-payment triggers penalties)
2. Document all payments meticulously for potential refund claims
3. Request liquidation extensions from Customs if possible (though many requests are being denied)
4. Consider protective lawsuit filing if exposure is substantial
5. Implement mitigation strategies: Production relocation, supplier diversification, alternative sourcing
6. Monitor for settlement opportunities if Supreme Court rules against administration

How the Supreme Court Could Rule

Option 1: Strike Down All IEEPA Tariffs (Best for Costco)

Court finds IEEPA does not authorize tariffs; declares all reciprocal and trafficking tariffs unlawful; requires refund process for companies that filed protective lawsuits or timely protests.

Impact: Potential $90+ billion in refunds; elimination of tariffs on imports from nearly all countries; major presidential power limitation; complex administrative refund process.

Option 2: Uphold IEEPA Tariffs (Worst for Costco)

Court defers to presidential emergency determinations; finds IEEPA’s “regulate importation” language authorizes tariffs; upholds broad executive foreign affairs authority.

Impact: Tariffs continue; no refunds; precedent for future presidents to use IEEPA for tariffs; potential for additional emergency tariffs.

Option 3: Split Decision (Partial Victory)

Court upholds trafficking tariffs (fentanyl/immigration emergency) but strikes down reciprocal tariffs (trade deficit emergency); or limits IEEPA authority but allows these specific tariffs under grandfather clause.

Impact: Partial refunds; some tariff relief; narrower precedent for future IEEPA use.

Option 4: Prospective Relief Only (Mixed Outcome)

Court finds tariffs unlawful but declines to order retroactive refunds due to “catastrophic economic consequences”; stops future collections only.

Impact: Companies like Costco would not recover payments already made; future imports tariff-free; protective lawsuits prove futile for refunds but successful for stopping ongoing tariff collections.

Option 5: Procedural Dismissal

Court finds challenges premature or that importers must exhaust administrative remedies before judicial review.

Impact: Tariffs continue; companies must pursue administrative protests first; delays resolution.

Comparison: Costco vs. Other Companies’ Tariff Lawsuit Strategies

Why Costco’s Approach Is Noteworthy:

“This is the first time we’re seeing big companies take their heads out of the sand publicly,” said Marc Busch, a trade law expert at Georgetown University.

Most major retailers have avoided lawsuits due to:

• Fear of White House retaliation
• Concerns about customer perception
• Hope for negotiated tariff relief
• Preference for quiet mitigation strategies

Costco’s public challenge makes it an outlier among major corporations.

What Recent Developments Mean for Affected Businesses

Key Takeaways:

1. Protective Lawsuits Are Necessary: Even if Supreme Court rules tariffs unlawful, companies without their own court judgments may not receive refunds due to liquidation finality rules.
   
2. Time Is Running Out: December 15, 2025, liquidation dates are approaching for many importers. Companies must act immediately to preserve refund rights.
   
3. Customs Is Denying Extensions: CBP has denied multiple requests to extend liquidation schedules, forcing companies to choose between filing lawsuits or losing refund opportunities.
   
4. Supreme Court Skepticism Is Promising: Oral argument suggested justices across ideological spectrum have concerns about IEEPA tariff authority, increasing likelihood of favorable ruling for challengers.
   
5. Decision Timing Uncertain: Supreme Court could rule before end of 2025 or wait until June 2026. Companies cannot afford to wait for decision before filing protective lawsuits.
   
6. $90+ Billion in Refunds at Stake: If Supreme Court strikes down tariffs, massive refund process will follow—but only for companies that filed timely protests or lawsuits.
   
7. White House Pressure Is Real: Amazon’s experience shows Trump administration is willing to use political pressure against companies challenging tariffs, creating business risk beyond legal considerations.
   
8. Consolidation Expected: Multiple identical lawsuits will likely be consolidated, creating efficiency but also meaning late filers may miss consolidation benefits.
   

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Will Costco get a refund if the Supreme Court rules against Trump’s tariffs?

Only if Costco’s lawsuit is successful or the Supreme Court orders retroactive refunds. Even if the Supreme Court holds IEEPA duties unlawful, importers that have paid IEEPA duties are not guaranteed a refund in the absence of their own judgment and judicial relief. This is why Costco filed its own protective lawsuit despite the pending Supreme Court case.

Q: How much has Costco paid in tariffs?

Costco has not disclosed the specific amount paid in IEEPA tariffs. However, with approximately one-third of its $275 billion in annual US sales coming from imports, the tariff exposure likely totals hundreds of millions of dollars or more.

Q: What happens if the Supreme Court upholds Trump’s tariffs?

If the Supreme Court rules that IEEPA authorizes the president to impose tariffs, all protective lawsuits—including Costco’s—would fail. Companies would not receive refunds, tariffs would continue, and the precedent would allow future presidents to use IEEPA for similar tariff actions without congressional approval.

Q: When will the Supreme Court decide the tariff case?

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 5, 2025, and placed the case on an expedited schedule. A decision could come before the end of 2025 but may extend to June 2026. The Court has not announced a specific decision date.

Q: Can individual consumers join Costco’s lawsuit or get refunds?

No. This lawsuit is specific to Costco as an importer seeking refunds for duties it paid directly to US Customs. Consumers who paid higher prices due to tariffs cannot join the lawsuit or claim refunds. Any tariff savings would depend on whether Costco passes refunds to customers through lower prices—which is not legally required.

Q: Why did Costco sue when other major retailers like Amazon and Walmart didn’t?

Costco’s lawyers wrote that the wholesale giant isn’t automatically guaranteed a refund if the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, and CBP denied multiple requests Costco made for finalizing tariff payments, creating urgency. The December 15 liquidation deadline forced Costco’s hand. Other retailers may be avoiding lawsuits due to fear of White House retaliation, hope for negotiated relief, or different liquidation timelines.

Q: What is the December 15, 2025, deadline and why does it matter?

December 15, 2025, is when US Customs will begin finalizing (“liquidating”) Costco’s import entries, making tariff amounts permanent. Once liquidated, Costco would have only 180 days to protest, and without timely protest, would lose refund rights even if tariffs are later declared unlawful. The lawsuit preserves Costco’s ability to seek complete refunds regardless of liquidation.

Q: Should other businesses file their own tariff refund lawsuits?

Businesses with substantial IEEPA tariff exposure and approaching liquidation dates should consult trade lawyers immediately. Protective lawsuits may be necessary to preserve refund rights, but filing decisions should consider: amount at stake, liquidation timeline, White House retaliation risk, and whether consolidation with existing cases is possible. Even without lawsuits, companies should file administrative protests within 180 days of liquidation.

Q: What makes IEEPA tariffs different from other Trump tariffs?

IEEPA tariffs (the reciprocal tariffs and trafficking tariffs) were imposed using emergency powers without congressional approval or investigations. Other Trump tariffs used specific statutes with defined procedures:

• Section 232 tariffs (steel/aluminum) require Commerce Department national security investigations
• Section 301 tariffs (China goods) require USTR investigations of unfair trade practices
• IEEPA tariffs required only Trump’s emergency declaration via executive order

Courts have previously upheld Section 232 and 301 tariffs but may view IEEPA’s broader grant of authority differently.

What This Case Means for Presidential Power and Future Trade Policy

Constitutional Significance:

This case represents a fundamental test of separation of powers. If the Supreme Court upholds IEEPA tariffs, future presidents would have authority to reshape the US economy through tariffs without congressional approval—simply by declaring emergencies.

If the Court strikes down the tariffs, it would reinforce that Congress alone holds taxation power and that emergency authorities have limits even in foreign affairs.

Economic Impact:

Over $90 billion in refunds could flow back to businesses if tariffs are struck down, but the refund process would be complex and lengthy. Companies that failed to file protective lawsuits or timely protests would lose out entirely.

If tariffs are upheld, businesses would continue absorbing costs or passing them to consumers. The expansive, fast-changing tariff policies have disrupted the retail sector in 2025, threatening to raise prices of goods and hamper the purchasing power of US consumers, though the impact has been more muted than expected due to exemptions and negotiations.

Trade Policy Precedent:

A ruling upholding IEEPA tariffs would fundamentally change how the US conducts trade policy, shifting power from Congress to the White House. Future presidents from both parties could use IEEPA to impose tariffs for virtually any foreign policy or economic goal by declaring an emergency.

A ruling striking down the tariffs would force the executive branch to work with Congress on tariff policy, potentially leading to more deliberate trade strategies with legislative input.

Diplomatic Implications:

Trump has used tariff threats as leverage in diplomatic negotiations with dozens of countries. Invalidating the tariffs would eliminate a key negotiating tool but could also reduce international tensions and trade uncertainty.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about the Costco tariff lawsuit and should not be considered legal advice. Businesses concerned about tariff refund rights should consult qualified international trade attorneys immediately to evaluate their specific situation, liquidation timelines, and available legal options. Outcomes depend on Supreme Court rulings, individual circumstances, and ongoing legal developments.

Sources:

• Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Customs and Border Protection, Case No. 1:25-cv-316, US Court of International Trade (filed November 28, 2025)
• Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. (No. 25-250) and Learning Resources v. Trump (No. 24-1287), US Supreme Court
• US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling on IEEPA tariffs (7-4 decision, stayed pending Supreme Court review)
• Supreme Court oral arguments transcript (November 5, 2025)
• CNN, CNBC, NPR, ABC News, Washington Post, Fortune, Bloomberg reporting (November-December 2025)
• Norton Rose Fulbright legal analysis (December 2025)
• Holland & Knight legal analysis of Supreme Court oral arguments (November 2025)

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah