Two small U.S. companies have launched fresh legal challenges to President Trump’s newly announced tariffs, arguing the administration failed to meet legal requirements before imposing broad levies on imports that the government says are tied to forced-labour concerns.
Companies say government didn’t make case required by law
The suits, filed in the United States Court of International Trade, were brought by Learning Resources — the educational toy company that successfully contested an earlier round of tariffs before the U.S. Supreme Court — and by two other small firms, Burlap and Barrel and Collective Horology. The latter two are represented by the libertarian advocacy organisation Liberty Justice Center.
At issue is a recent package of duties announced by the administration that impose double-digit tariffs on goods from about 60 trading partners. The administration says the measures are being used under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to target imports tied to forced labour; officials say the tariffs are aimed at pressuring trading partners to stop the practice.
But the lawsuits argue the government did not adequately demonstrate how each targeted economy engages in the specified practice, nor did it clearly explain how the tariffs will eliminate that conduct — steps plaintiffs say are required under Section 301.
“Forced labor
The filings come after a previous round of worldwide tariffs that were challenged in court and struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in February. That decision left policymakers searching for a legally durable approach. The new measures replaced temporary 10% worldwide tariffs that had been allowed to expire, and critics contend the latest move is designed to restore the broad protection the administration previously sought.
Potential ripple effects for small firms and trade policy
Small businesses say the new levies threaten supply chains and raise costs for companies that lack the scale to absorb sudden tariff hikes. The suits by Learning Resources, Burlap and Barrel and Collective Horology mirror earlier legal strategies that successfully challenged the administration’s trade actions and aim to subject this latest round to rigorous judicial review.
The litigation will test whether the administration’s use of Section 301 withstands judicial scrutiny when applied so widely. Plaintiffs contend the government must show a specific causal connection between each foreign economy’s conduct and the need for the particular tariff, and must articulate how the tariff will remedy the alleged conduct.
- Who sued: Learning Resources; Burlap and Barrel; Collective Horology.
- Where: United States Court of International Trade.
- Main legal claim: Government failed to meet Section 301 requirements to establish targets and remedies.
| Measure | Detail |
|---|---|
| Number of trading partners affected | 60 |
| Share of U.S. imports covered | 99% |
| Previous temporary tariff rate | 10% |
Legal observers and trade specialists will be watching whether courts demand more targeted, evidence-based findings from the administration before allowing broad trade measures to remain in force. If the suits succeed, they could again narrow the tools available to the executive branch for imposing sweeping import duties.
For small companies that rely on imported goods or components, the stakes are immediate. The plaintiffs in these cases represent retailers and specialty importers that contend broad, administratively imposed tariffs create disproportionate burdens on firms without the leverage to shift supply chains quickly.
As the litigation proceeds, the government will have to defend both the factual record supporting the tariffs and the legal interpretation of Section 301 — a statute that has been invoked repeatedly in recent years as an enforcement mechanism that bypasses some traditional trade-negotiation channels.
The outcomes of these cases will shape whether the administration can maintain a wide-ranging tariff regime premised on forced-labour concerns, or whether courts will require a more granular, country-by-country showing before such measures are sustained.
