Trump Imposes New Section 301 Tariffs; Lawsuits Challenge Their Legality
President Donald Trump imposed 10-12.5% tariffs on imports from over 80 countries under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing forced-labor violations. Legal experts note these tariffs are harder to overturn than previous ones due to a formal investigation requirement. Two lawsuits have been filed—by the Liberty Justice Center and by Learning Resources—challenging the tariffs as overbroad and unconstitutional, though experts are skeptical of success. The policy may represent a new normal for U.S. trade.
Editorial responsibility
- No named human review is recorded for this page.
- Reports are grouped by semantic similarity and deterministic rules. Language models may assist titles, summaries, translation and cross-source analysis; the page itself is projected from evidence records.
- Current automated evidence projection
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
25 Democratic-led US states sue Trump administration over new tariffs
Twenty-five Democratic-led US states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over newly imposed tariffs. The states are asking a trade court to declare the tariffs unlawful, seeking an injunction to stop them and demanding refunds of levies already paid by the plaintiffs. Critics argue that the new tariffs were introduced to replace previously invalidated duties rather than to address the stated issue of forced labor. The legal challenge represents a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between state governments and the federal administration over trade policy.
25 Democratic-led states sue Trump administration over new global tariffs
A coalition of 25 Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday, challenging the legality of new tariffs imposed on imports from 60 U.S. trading partners. The states argue that President Trump exceeded his authority by using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to reinstate tariffs that were previously struck down by the Supreme Court. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, claims the administration bypassed required country-specific investigations and that the new duties of 10% or 12.5% unlawfully replace earlier blocked tariffs. This is the second legal challenge to the tariffs, following a suit by small businesses. The tariffs cover 99.4% of U.S. imports.
Spice Entrepreneur Challenges Trump's Newest Tariffs in Court
Ori Zohar, co-founder of single-source spice importer Burlap & Barrel, is suing the Trump administration over newly imposed tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5%, ostensibly targeting forced labor. Zohar argues the tariffs are written so broadly that they harm businesses like his that have no domestic alternative for products like Vietnamese cinnamon or Herbes de Provence. The lawsuit, filed with help from the Liberty Justice Center, marks the third time the libertarian law firm has challenged Trump's tariff regime, having previously won cases before federal district court, appellate court, and the U.S. Supreme Court. The new tariffs could cost Burlap & Barrel an additional $50,000 to $100,000 annually, following a $110,000 refund from earlier overturned tariffs. Zohar expresses surprise that larger companies remain hesitant to challenge the broadly unpopular tariffs, leaving small businesses and a small legal nonprofit to lead the fight against what legal experts say is likely unconstitutional presidential overreach.
Show 14 older updatesHide older updates
Spice Entrepreneur Ori Zohar Challenges Trump's Newest Tariffs in Court
Ori Zohar, co-founder of single-source spice importer Burlap & Barrel, is suing the Trump administration over newly imposed tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5%, ostensibly targeting forced labor. Zohar argues the tariffs are written so broadly that they harm businesses like his, which have no domestic alternatives for products like Vietnamese cinnamon or Herbes de Provence. The lawsuit, backed by the Liberty Justice Center, marks the third legal challenge to Trump's tariff regime, following previous victories before federal district court, appellate court, and the Supreme Court in the Learning Resources v. Trump case. The new tariffs could cost Burlap & Barrel an additional $50,000 to $100,000 annually. Zohar expresses surprise that larger companies remain hesitant to challenge the tariffs despite broad public opposition. Legal experts, including Alan Wolff of the Peterson Institute, argue the tariffs likely exceed presidential authority and would be overturned by the Supreme Court if challenged.
Spice Entrepreneur Ori Zohar Challenges Trump's Newest Tariffs in Court
Ori Zohar, co-founder of single-source spice importer Burlap & Barrel, is suing the Trump administration over newly announced tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5%, ostensibly targeting forced labor. Zohar argues the tariffs are written so broadly that they harm businesses like his, which have no domestic alternatives for products like Vietnamese cinnamon or Herbes de Provence. The lawsuit, filed with help from the Liberty Justice Center, marks the third time the libertarian law firm has challenged Trump's tariff regime—and it remains undefeated, having previously won at the district, appellate, and Supreme Court levels. The new tariffs could cost Burlap & Barrel $50,000 to $100,000 annually. Zohar expresses surprise that large corporations remain passive despite broad public opposition to tariffs, while small businesses lead the legal fight. Legal experts, including Peterson Institute fellow Alan Wolff, argue the tariffs are likely unconstitutional because Congress did not delegate such broad tariff authority to the president.
Small Businesses Sue U.S. Government Over Trump's Latest Section 301 Tariffs
Small businesses, including toy company Learning Resources and spice importer Burlap & Barrel, have filed lawsuits at the Court of International Trade challenging the Trump administration's latest round of Section 301 tariffs. The lawsuits, supported by the Liberty Justice Center, argue that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) failed to follow legal protocol by imposing duties of 10-12.5% on imports from 60 countries without adequately justifying the targeting of each economy. The plaintiffs claim the USTR acted arbitrarily by applying uniform tariffs even to goods with no connection to forced labor, the stated basis for the investigations. The legal challenge follows a similar effort in 2025 against Trump's IEEPA tariffs.
Small Businesses Sue Trump Administration Over New Section 301 Tariffs
Small U.S. businesses, including toy company Learning Resources and spice importer Burlap & Barrel, have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration over newly imposed Section 301 tariffs. The lawsuits, filed on July 27, 2026, at the Court of International Trade, allege that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) failed to follow legal protocol by imposing duties of 10-12.5% on imports from 60 countries without adequately justifying the targeting of each economy. The businesses argue the tariffs are arbitrary and cover goods with no connection to forced labor, the stated justification. The legal challenge is led by the Liberty Justice Center, which previously fought Trump's IEEPA tariffs in 2025.
Trump sued hours after new tariffs take effect, as experts say they may not hold up
President Donald Trump imposed broad tariffs on goods from more than 80 countries under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, alleging forced labor practices. Hours after the tariffs took effect, two small businesses sued the administration, arguing the tariffs are a pretext to recreate the same global tariff regime the Supreme Court struck down five months earlier. Trade experts, including Georgetown Law's Peter Harrell, say Trump's use of Section 301 is fundamentally different from past applications and could be struck down in court. The new tariffs cover 99.4% of U.S. trade and come alongside other actions, including 25% duties on Brazilian imports and threats of 50% tariffs on Canadian goods. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, contends that Section 301 does not authorize the president to impose permanent, broad tariffs. The administration defends the tariffs as a long-standing focus on forced labor, but legal challenges are expected to escalate.
Trump sued hours after new tariffs take effect, as experts say they may not hold up
President Donald Trump imposed broad tariffs on goods from over 80 countries under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, alleging forced labor practices. The tariffs cover 99.4% of U.S. trade. Hours after they took effect, two small businesses sued the administration in the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing the tariffs are a pretext to recreate the global tariff regime the Supreme Court struck down five months earlier. Legal experts say Trump's use of Section 301 is unprecedented and could be blocked in court. The lawsuit claims the tariffs are designed to preserve the same broad tariff regime Congress did not authorize. The administration defends the tariffs as a focus on forced labor, but critics see them as an attempt to bypass the Supreme Court ruling that invalidated previous tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Second Lawsuit Filed Challenging Trump's New Section 301 Tariffs
A second lawsuit, Learning Resources, Inc. v. United States, has been filed challenging President Trump's new Section 301 tariffs. The case was brought by several businesses led by Learning Resources, a toy manufacturer previously involved in the IEEPA tariff litigation that reached the Supreme Court. The complaint argues the tariffs violate statutory requirements and, if Section 301 grants such power, it violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine. Unlike the first lawsuit filed by the Liberty Justice Center, this complaint does not invoke the major questions doctrine or seek class action certification. The case was filed in the US Court of International Trade, which recently ruled against Trump's Section 122 tariffs. Observers expect the court may consolidate the two Section 301 cases, with additional lawsuits from businesses, public interest groups, or state governments possible.
Second Lawsuit Filed Challenging Trump's New Section 301 Tariffs
A second lawsuit, Learning Resources, Inc. v. United States, has been filed challenging President Trump's new Section 301 tariffs. The case was filed by several businesses led by Learning Resources, a toy manufacturer that was also involved in the earlier IEEPA tariff litigation that reached the Supreme Court. The complaint argues that the tariffs violate statutory requirements and that if Section 301 grants the president such power, it violates the nondelegation doctrine. Unlike the first lawsuit filed by the Liberty Justice Center, this complaint does not invoke the major questions doctrine or seek class action certification, meaning any relief would likely be limited to the specific plaintiff firms. The case was filed in the US Court of International Trade, which recently ruled against Trump's Section 122 tariffs. The author predicts the court may consolidate the two cases and that more lawsuits may follow.
Second Lawsuit Filed Challenging Trump's New Section 301 Tariffs
A second lawsuit, Learning Resources, Inc. v. United States, has been filed challenging President Trump's new Section 301 tariffs. The case was brought by several businesses led by Learning Resources, a toy manufacturer that was also involved in prior IEEPA tariff litigation. The plaintiffs argue the tariffs violate statutory requirements and, if Section 301 grants such broad presidential power, it violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine. Unlike the first lawsuit filed by the Liberty Justice Center, this complaint does not invoke the major questions doctrine or seek class action certification. The case was filed in the US Court of International Trade, which recently ruled against Trump's Section 122 tariffs. Legal observers expect the court may consolidate this case with the earlier challenge.
Liberty Justice Center Files First Lawsuit Challenging Trump's New Section 301 Tariffs
The Liberty Justice Center has filed Burlap & Barrel, Inc. v. Greer, the first lawsuit challenging former President Donald Trump's massive new Section 301 tariffs. The complaint, filed at the US Court of International Trade, argues that the tariffs violate the procedural and substantive requirements of Section 301, which was intended to target specific trade practices rather than wage a worldwide trade war. The lawsuit also contends the tariffs run afoul of the major questions doctrine, requiring Congress to clearly authorize decisions of vast economic significance, and the nondelegation doctrine, which limits delegation of congressional tariff authority to the executive. The plaintiffs, two small businesses importing goods from affected countries, are seeking class action certification to potentially block the tariffs for all importers. The author, who previously worked on a related IEEPA tariff case, supports the lawsuit and notes additional challenges are likely.
Liberty Justice Center Files First Lawsuit Challenging Trump's New Section 301 Tariffs
The Liberty Justice Center has filed the first lawsuit challenging former President Donald Trump's massive new Section 301 tariffs. The case, Burlap & Barrel, Inc. v. Greer, was filed in the US Court of International Trade on behalf of two small businesses importing goods from countries covered by the tariffs. The complaint argues the tariffs violate procedural and substantive requirements of Section 301, exceed the statute's intended scope by using 'forced labor' as a pretext for a worldwide trade war, and run afoul of the major questions doctrine and nondelegation doctrine. The plaintiffs are seeking class action certification, which if granted and successful, would block the tariffs for virtually all importers. The Liberty Justice Center previously won a Supreme Court case challenging Trump's IEEPA tariffs and prevailed in a Section 122 tariffs case.
Liberty Justice Center Files First Lawsuit Challenging Trump's New Section 301 Tariffs
The Liberty Justice Center has filed Burlap & Barrel, Inc. v. Greer, the first legal challenge against President Trump's new Section 301 tariffs. The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, argues that the tariffs violate the procedural and substantive requirements of Section 301, which was intended to target specific trade practices, not wage a worldwide trade war. The complaint also contends the tariffs run afoul of the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to clearly authorize executive actions of vast economic significance, and the nondelegation doctrine, which limits congressional power delegation to the executive. The plaintiffs, two small businesses importing goods from affected countries, are seeking class action certification to block the tariffs for all importers. The Liberty Justice Center previously succeeded in challenging Trump's IEEPA and Section 122 tariffs in court.
First Lawsuit Filed Against Trump’s New Tariffs; Legal Experts Skeptical of Success
Small businesses, led by the Liberty Justice Center, filed the first lawsuit against President Trump's new tariffs imposed on imports from over 80 countries under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, took effect July 24, 2026, citing forced labor concerns. Legal experts are skeptical the lawsuit will succeed because Section 301 requires a formal investigation and explicitly grants tariff authority, making it harder to challenge than previous tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court. However, some experts question whether the sweeping scope of the tariffs could still be vulnerable. The lawsuit argues the tariffs are unlawfully overbroad and arbitrary.
Trump Imposes New Tariffs Under Section 301, Legal Experts Say Harder to Overturn
President Donald Trump imposed new tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on imports from over 80 countries, citing forced-labor violations. The tariffs were enacted under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which requires a formal investigation and provides a legal paper trail, making them harder to challenge in court compared to previous tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Legal experts note that Section 301 explicitly grants tariff authority and courts are typically deferential. However, some question whether the sweeping scope—covering nearly all imports—could still face judicial skepticism. Trade attorneys and economists suggest the administration has flexibility to adjust the tariffs, and the policy may represent a new normal for U.S. trade policy.