Tariffs on Trial: Small Businesses Drag Trump’s New Trade Levies Back to Court
A fresh legal battle has erupted over U.S. trade policy as a coalition of American small businesses has challenged President Donald Trump’s latest tariff regime, filing two lawsuits that seek to block sweeping new import duties imposed on dozens of trading partners. The cases, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, argue that the administration has once again exceeded its legal authority by imposing broad tariffs without satisfying the statutory requirements laid down by Congress.
The lawsuits target tariffs announced under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, through which the Trump administration has imposed double-digit duties—generally between 10% and 12.5%—on imports from around 60 countries. The White House says the measures are aimed at countries that have failed to curb the export of goods allegedly produced with forced labour and are intended to protect American workers and domestic manufacturing.
Among the plaintiffs are educational toy manufacturer Learning Resources, spice importer Burlap & Barrel, watch retailer Collective Horology, and several other small businesses that depend heavily on imported products. They contend that the new tariffs will significantly raise operating costs, force price increases for consumers, and threaten the survival of smaller firms that lack the financial flexibility of large multinational corporations.
The legal challenge comes only months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s earlier global tariffs imposed under emergency economic powers were unlawful. Critics argue that the administration has effectively attempted to restore many of those duties using a different statutory route, while the government insists the latest measures rely on established trade laws and are legally distinct from the tariffs previously struck down.
The plaintiffs argue that Section 301 requires the government to justify trade action on a country-by-country basis and demonstrate how the tariffs directly address the alleged unfair practices. They maintain that imposing blanket duties across dozens of countries without detailed findings violates both the Trade Act and constitutional limits on executive authority over taxation and trade policy.
Trade law experts say the new lawsuits may prove more difficult than previous challenges because the administration has attempted to ground the tariffs in long-standing trade legislation rather than emergency powers. Even so, the litigation is expected to test the limits of presidential authority and could ultimately reshape how future administrations use trade laws to impose tariffs.
Business groups warn that continued uncertainty surrounding tariff policy is disrupting supply chains, delaying investment decisions, and increasing costs for importers across multiple industries. While some companies have diversified suppliers or shifted production, many smaller businesses argue they lack the resources to absorb repeated changes in trade policy and remain vulnerable to sudden increases in import costs.
The outcome of these cases could have far-reaching consequences for U.S. trade policy. If the courts side with the businesses, the administration may be forced to revise or withdraw parts of its latest tariff programme. If the government prevails, the decision would strengthen presidential authority to use existing trade statutes to pursue aggressive tariff policies, potentially influencing global trade relations for years to come.
