Florsheim Owner Weyco Group Sues Trump administration over tariffs, filing a lawsuit in December 2025 to recover millions paid in import duties on footwear from China and other countries. The Glendale‑based company, which owns the Florsheim, Bogs and Nunn Bush brands, submitted its complaint to the U.S. Court of International Trade seeking a refund of the incremental tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Weyco Group executives said the tariffs had forced them to absorb “millions” in extra costs and disrupted their supply chain throughout 2025.
Lawsuit Filed Over Tariff Costs
Weyco Group’s legal action directly challenges the Trump administration’s use of IEEPA to levy duties on imported goods. The company alleges that the tariffs, which began in February 2025, exceeded statutory authority and caused financial harm that could not be mitigated through routine pricing adjustments. In its filing, Weyco noted that it paid approximately $16 million in incremental tariffs during the 2025 calendar year, a figure it hopes to recover with interest if the court rules in its favor. The lawsuit also requests that the court declare the tariff policy illegal and order reimbursement of the duties paid.
Impact on Florsheim Pricing and Supply Chain
Tariff rates on Florsheim‑branded shoes imported from China reached as high as 145% at certain points in 2025, according to company statements. Facing such duties, Weyco attempted to shift production to India, but encountered tariffs there as well, leaving few low‑cost sourcing options. To preserve margins, the company raised prices by about 10% in the summer of 2025, yet acknowledged that this increase only recouped a fraction of the added expenses. Internal analyses showed that, depending on the country of origin, tariffs caused price hikes ranging from 19% to 50% on affected footwear lines. During the second quarter of 2025, Weyco described trade with China as “economically unfeasible” under the prevailing duty structure.
In response, Weyco adopted a calculated strategy: it maintained production on essential programs, kept finished goods overseas to minimize tariff exposure, and aimed to deliver nearly 100%^−/−^ of its fall shipments once duty rates fell to viable levels. The company also rushed approximately one million pairs of shoes from China ahead of the April 2025 tariff increase, hoping to beat the higher costs. Despite these efforts, executives said they would need to raise prices in the double‑digit percentages by summer 2026 if tariff rates remained unchanged.
Legal Proceedings and Outlook
On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, invalidating the statutory basis for the incremental duties enacted since February 2025. The decision remanded the matter to the Court of International Trade for further proceedings, including determinations on implementation and potential refunds. Weyco Group expressed optimism that the ruling would strengthen its case for recovering the $16 million in tariff payments.
The lawsuit is part of a broader wave of litigation: over 1,000 companies, including FedEx, Costco and Puma, have sued the U.S. government seeking refunds for IEEPA‑based tariffs imposed in 2025 and 2026. Industry observers note that, even if the courts eventually order refunds, the process could take months or longer, leaving firms like Weyco to manage ongoing cost pressures in the interim.
Broader Context for the Footwear Industry
Weyco’s experience illustrates how tariff volatility affects manufacturers that rely heavily on overseas sourcing. Approximately 75% of the company’s products are made in China, with additional sourcing in Vietnam, Cambodia and India. Tariffs on Vietnamese and Cambodian goods now exceed 50%, while duties on Chinese‑made items regularly surpass 60% in many categories. These shifting rates have forced footwear brands to constantly reassess pricing, supply chain logistics and inventory strategies.
Although the Supreme Court’s decision removes the legal foundation for the current tariff regime, the actual duties remain in place until the Court of International Trade issues a final ruling. Until then, companies continue to pay the duties and absorb the associated costs, which they hope to recoup through successful litigation.
