A coalition of small-to-medium enterprises has filed fresh lawsuits in the Court of International Trade challenging the Trump administration’s latest Section 301 tariff regime, marking the third major legal confrontation over executive trade authority in under two years. The suits, filed Friday, target duties ranging from 10% to 12.5% imposed on imports from 60 countries—covering over 99% of U.S. import volume.
Background: The Third Tariff Iteration
This latest action follows two previous attempts to levy sweeping global tariffs. The first utilized the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the Supreme Court invalidated in February 2026. The second employed Section 122 of the Trade Act, imposing 10% global duties for 150 days before expiring Friday—the same day the Section 301 duties took effect. Both prior regimes were struck down or lapsed, prompting the administration to pivot to Section 301 authority.
Plaintiffs and Legal Arguments
The plaintiff group includes Learning Resources (Illinois-based toy manufacturer), Burlap & Barrel (New York spice importer), and several flooring and industrial firms represented by the Liberty Justice Center. Their core contention: the USTR, led by Ambassador Jamieson Greer, failed to satisfy statutory requirements under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
- Procedural deficiency: Congress did not authorize a “predetermined” tariff policy without demonstrating how each targeted practice harms U.S. commerce and how the specific duty remedies that harm.
- Arbitrary application: The USTR conducted concurrent investigations into 60 economies in just five months, imposing near-uniform tariffs regardless of individual country conditions or whether specific goods had any connection to forced labor.
- Separation of powers: Liberty Justice Center Senior Counsel Jeffrey Schwab emphasized: “The Constitution gives the power to impose tariffs to Congress… the administration must obey the limits Congress imposed.”
Market and Supply Chain Implications
For businesses like Burlap & Barrel, which sources spices from Vietnam, Guatemala, Tanzania, Turkey, and France—none of which can be domestically produced—the tariffs represent a direct cost increase with no viable sourcing alternative. The uniform application across vastly different economies ignores the statutory requirement for tailored remedies, potentially raising consumer prices across categories from spices to toys to flooring materials.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent previously signaled continuity, stating rates would snap back to “exactly where they were” before the Supreme Court’s IEEPA ruling. Plaintiffs argue this proves the Section 301 outcome was a “foregone conclusion” rather than a genuine investigative process.
What Comes Next
The Court of International Trade will now determine whether the USTR’s expedited, multi-country investigation meets the Trade Act’s procedural and substantive standards. A ruling against the administration would mark the third judicial rebuke of its tariff strategy, reinforcing congressional primacy in trade taxation. For importers, the outcome dictates whether 10-12.5% duties on 60 nations’ goods remain, retreat, or face further legal limbo.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974? It authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate and retaliate against foreign government practices deemed discriminatory or restrictive to U.S. commerce, including through tariffs, after meeting specific statutory procedural requirements.
- How do these tariffs differ from the previous IEEPA and Section 122 duties? IEEPA relied on emergency economic powers (struck down by the Supreme Court), while Section 122 provided temporary 10% global tariffs (now expired). Section 301 requires country-specific investigations and findings—plaintiffs argue this process was rushed and uniform, not tailored.
- Which businesses are most affected by the 60-country tariff scope? Importers of goods not producible domestically—such as specialty spices, certain toys, and specific industrial inputs—face unavoidable cost increases. Companies with diversified global supply chains across the targeted nations bear compounding duty exposure.
