Two U.S. small businesses have filed a legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s latest tariffs, arguing that the new import taxes exceed presidential authority and do not meet the legal standards required under federal trade law.
The lawsuit was filed Friday in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York. The businesses claim the administration’s new tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners are unlawful and should not be enforced.
The legal action argues that the government must provide detailed, country-specific evidence showing how each nation is connected to forced labour before imposing broad tariffs. According to the complaint, the administration has not met that legal requirement.
The businesses are supported by the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit legal organization that has previously challenged several rounds of Trump-era tariffs. The group argues that the administration is attempting to restore trade measures that courts have already found to be unlawful.
Earlier on Friday, the Trump administration announced new tariffs of 10% and 12.5% on imports from 60 trading partners, including the European Union. Officials said the measures are intended to address concerns that some countries have not done enough to prevent the export of goods produced with forced labour.
The new tariffs took effect after a temporary 10% global tariff expired.
Tariffs have remained a major part of President Trump’s trade policy. Throughout his administration, he has used import duties to pressure trading partners during negotiations and to address trade practices that the United States considers unfair.
However, many of those policies have faced legal challenges.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president authority to impose broad tariffs on trading partners without congressional approval. The ruling blocked several of the administration’s earlier tariff measures.
Following that decision, the administration introduced a temporary global tariff using a different legal authority. That policy also faced court challenges and was later ruled unlawful by the U.S. Court of International Trade. The administration has appealed that ruling.
The latest tariffs rely on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law that has been used by previous presidents to respond to unfair trade practices by other countries.
Unlike earlier legal authorities, Section 301 has a long history of use in U.S. trade policy. However, the businesses behind the lawsuit argue that past administrations applied the law in a much narrower way.
According to the complaint, previous Section 301 actions focused on specific countries, industries, or trade practices. The plaintiffs argue that applying tariffs to a large group of countries at fixed rates goes beyond how the law has traditionally been used.
Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney representing the businesses through the Liberty Justice Center, said Section 301 does not authorize the government to impose broad import taxes on nearly every trading partner using predetermined tariff rates.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare the new tariffs unlawful and block their enforcement. It also requests that importers remain eligible to receive refunds if the tariffs are ultimately ruled illegal.
The two companies bringing the case are Burlap & Barrel, a spice importer that previously challenged the administration’s temporary global tariff, and Collective Horology, a California-based retailer specializing in watches.
Business groups have closely followed the latest tariff announcements because import duties can increase costs for companies that rely on products from overseas suppliers. Higher import costs may also affect pricing, supply chains, and business planning across multiple industries.
The legal challenge is expected to become another significant test of the administration’s trade policy. The court will now examine whether the use of Section 301 in this case falls within the powers granted by federal law.
As the case moves forward, businesses, importers, and international trading partners will be watching closely. The outcome could influence future U.S. trade policy and determine how far presidential authority extends when imposing tariffs aimed at addressing international labour and trade concerns.
