New Lawsuit Claims Trump’s Latest Tariffs Are Illegal and Demands Court Strike Them Down

The Trump administration is facing a new legal challenge accusing it of once again pursuing an “unlawful” tariff strategy that small businesses say will drive up costs and inflict avoidable financial harm on American companies.

The dispute follows an April ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that President Donald Trump lacked authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. After that decision, Trump moved to revive the trade measures through a different legal pathway, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that limits such tariffs to a maximum of 150 days.

That 150-day window is set to close on July 24. Ahead of that deadline, Trump this week unveiled a third version of the tariff program, this time relying on Section 301 of the Trade Act, a statute often used to respond to alleged unfair trade practices, including claims tied to foreign forced labor.

Small businesses behind the new lawsuit argue the latest maneuver is not meaningfully different from the earlier efforts.

“The sequence and structure of those measures, as well as Administration statements, show that the Section 301 Action was designed to preserve substantially the same broad tariff regime that this Court and the Supreme Court have held Congress did not authorize under IEEPA and Section 122,” the plaintiffs wrote in a 33-page complaint filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

According to the complaint, the Section 301 tariffs amount to an attempt to reconstruct the same “sweeping” import-duty system that courts have already rejected twice. The plaintiffs point in particular to the timing of the new duties, which are scheduled to take effect as the temporary Section 122 tariffs expire.

“[T]he timing, scope, and rate structure of the final action, support the inference that the Section 301 tariffs, by design, replace the invalidated global tariff regime rather than constitute measures selected to obtain elimination of identified economy-specific practices,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs say it was not only Trump’s own words that led to this conclusion – but also his foremost economic official.

From the complaint, at length:

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has insisted that these new policies will result in “virtually unchanged tariff revenue” following the Supreme Court’s IEEPA ruling and the impending expiration of the Section 122 surcharge, claiming that “the tariff rates are going to go back to exactly where they were” and projecting that “there’s going to be a de minimis decline in tariff revenue” in 2026 under the new Section 301 tariffs…

[The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)] determined the tariff rates first—calibrated to replicate the invalidated IEEPA rates—and assembled economy-specific findings afterward to justify them. The Action’s coverage likewise tracks the value of U.S. imports rather than any explained distinction in the forced-labor-import practices of covered and noncovered economies: USTR selected 60 economies collectively accounting for approximately 99.4 percent of U.S. imports by value, without explaining why trade volume bears on whether an economy’s alleged practices warrant tariffs or whether those tariffs would eliminate those practices.

The plaintiffs, a spice importer and high-end watch importer, say the statute being cited by the Trump administration simply does not do – and is not meant for – what the government claims.

“Section 301 is a targeted, country-specific and practice-specific remedial authority,” the filing goes on. “It permits the Trade Representative to act only upon a determination that a particular act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce…It is not a freestanding authorization to tax substantially all imports from substantially all trading partners at rates selected to replicate the invalidated IEEPA tariff regime rather than to eliminate identified foreign practices.”

Moreover, the plaintiffs say, the Section 301 announcement fails even on its terms.

Again the filing, at length:

Defendants did not explain how near-uniform ad valorem duties of 10 to 12.5 percent on substantially all merchandise from approximately 60 economies—duties calibrated to restore the rate structure and preserve substantially the same tariff revenue from the invalidated IEEPA tariffs and expired Section 122 tariffs and imposed without regard to the distinct circumstances of each economy—are designed to eliminate any identified foreign practice. Instead, the Section 301 Action imposes a general import tax that Section 301 does not authorize.

The plaintiffs insist the new tariffs are “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act and are asking the business-specific court to certify a class of aggrieved businesses, set aside the tariffs, enjoin the enforcement and/or collection of import duties, and for refunds of any such duties already collected.

The post ‘Not a freestanding authorization to tax’: Trump’s latest tariffs are just as illegal as the ones SCOTUS ‘invalidated’ and another court must say so: Lawsuit first appeared on Law & Crime.