Two lawsuits were filed by small businesses in federal court challenging tariffs announced Thursday that impose double-digit duties on approximately 60 trading partners. The tariffs cover roughly 99% of U.S. imports and were implemented under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, with the Trump administration citing countries’ failure to prevent imports produced by forced labor as justification.
The first lawsuit was filed Friday in the Court of International Trade by Learning Resources, an educational toy company that previously won a tariff challenge at the Supreme Court, along with several other small businesses. A second lawsuit was filed by Burlap and Barrel, a spice company based in New York, and Collective Horology, a watch retailer based in California, represented by the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian advocacy group. Both lawsuits challenge the legality of the tariffs under Section 301, arguing that the government did not adequately establish its case against individual trading partners or explain how the tariffs would eliminate forced labor practices.
Critics contend the tariffs are designed to replace worldwide levies that Trump imposed the previous year, which were struck down by the Supreme Court in February. The current tariffs were announced as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs that had also faced court challenges expired.
Trade experts suggest these challenges may face a steeper legal path than previous tariff disputes. A former U.S. trade official noted that Trump used similar Section 301 authority to impose significant tariffs on China during his first term, and those measures survived court scrutiny. Legal analysts indicate that even if countries adopt the policies the U.S. demands, they would need to demonstrate enforcement to Washington’s satisfaction before tariffs could be removed, suggesting limited near-term prospects for country-wide relief.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI