Small businesses file first legal challenges to Trump's new Section 301 forced-labor tariffs covering 99% of imports, arguing government failed to establish case against each economy as required by law.
Two separate lawsuits filed Friday challenge President Trump's new tariffs on 60 trading partners, announced Thursday, that impose double-digit levies covering 99% of U.S. imports. The tariffs were implemented under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, with the administration citing countries' failure to prevent imports produced by forced labor. Critics say the move is designed to replace worldwide tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court in February.
Educational toy company Learning Resources, which won a previous Supreme Court case against Trump tariffs, filed suit in the Court of International Trade along with several other small businesses. A second lawsuit was filed by spice company Burlap and Barrel and watch retailer Collective Horology, represented by the Liberty Justice Center. Both suits argue the government failed to adequately establish its case against each specific economy or explain how the tariffs will eliminate forced labor practices, as required by Section 301.
Legal experts say these tariffs may be harder to challenge than previous rounds. Trump successfully used Section 301 to impose tariffs on China during his first term, and those survived court challenges. Even if countries enact desired policies, they'll need to prove enforcement to Washington's satisfaction before tariffs are removed, suggesting "no short-term path for country-wide relief," according to trade lawyer Patrick Childress of Holland & Knight.
Editor’s rationale — Sweeping tariffs affecting 99% of U.S. imports create material operational and economic consequences across multiple sectors and supply chains, with nationwide scope and durable policy implications. However, this represents litigation reaction to announced policy rather than the original policy announcement itself, and legal challenges to similar measures have mixed track records. Verification relies on official statements and established legal framework, though White House declined comment.