Summary: Two American small businesses have filed suit contesting the most recent round of 10% global tariffs, saying the president lacks authority to revive broad import taxes using a different statute after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the prior tariffs. The legal challenge, brought by a spice importer and a toy maker, echoes objections made by a coalition of states and frames the administration's action as a misinterpretation of an older trade law.
On Monday, spice importer Burlap & Barrel, Inc. and toy manufacturer Basic Fun Inc. initiated litigation against the administration over the new tariffs, arguing that the president cannot simply switch to an alternative legal basis to reimpose a sweeping global 10% duty on imported goods. The complaint was filed by the legal nonprofit Liberty Justice Center and is the first private lawsuit targeting the administration's latest tariff action.
The companies' legal argument parallels claims advanced last week by a group of 24 U.S. states. Both the private plaintiffs and the state coalition contend that the administration's reliance on a long-standing, seldom-used trade statute represents a misreading of a law that was intended to address historical monetary concerns rather than routine trade imbalances.
Quoting Ethan Frisch, the co-founder of Burlap & Barrel, the plaintiffs emphasized the domestic consequences of the tariffs. "Sudden global tariffs make it harder for us to operate, harder for our partners to sell their crops, and more expensive for American families," Frisch said. He added that the companies joined the suit because they believe trade policy should not be made by "inventing an economic crisis."
The suit comes after a major legal setback for the administration on Feb. 20, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of the president's prior tariffs. The high court found that those earlier duties, which were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) - a statute that had not previously been used to levy tariffs - were unlawful.
Throughout his presidency, the president has made tariffs a focal point of trade policy, employing them as leverage in negotiations with other countries. The new litigation questions whether his administration can lawfully pursue a similar tariff outcome under a different statutory authority now that the IEEPA-based measures have been invalidated by the Court.
The complaint centers on statutory interpretation and on the claimed economic effects of the duties. The plaintiffs maintain that the current tariff structure disproportionately burdens small importers and U.S. consumers, while the administration defends its trade policy as necessary leverage in international negotiations. The litigation will test the scope of executive authority to impose trade measures when prior uses of a particular law have been rejected by the judiciary.
End of report.