Small Businesses Sue Twice to Block Section 301 Tariffs
Miles Bennett
The same U.S. small businesses that twice dragged the Trump administration into court filed a third round of lawsuits this week, challenging the Section 301 tariffs that took effect last week — This means → the government's latest legal workaround faces the same judicial gauntlet that struck down its predecessors.
Who is suing, and over what?
Two lawsuits landed simultaneously. One, filed through the Liberty Justice Center, represents spice importer Burlap & Barrel and watch retailer Collective Horology.
The other is led by toy maker Learning Resources — the same company that won at the Supreme Court and overturned the IEEPA-based tariffs — joined by a flooring manufacturer and an affiliated firm.
This means → the plaintiffs who already beat the government once are back with courtroom experience, targeting its newest tariff structure.
What do the Section 301 tariffs actually impose?
The tariffs took effect last week, replacing the blanket 10% temporary tariff that was set to expire on July 24.
They levy 10% or 12.5% duties on imports from more than 60 economies, citing insufficient efforts to combat forced labor.
In plain terms = the government swapped one legal key — "emergency economic powers" — for another — "trade remedies" — but it is still locking the same door: broad-based import taxes.
What are the plaintiffs' legal arguments?
The Liberty Justice Center alleges that Trade Representative Jamieson Greer "set the rate first, then assembled country-specific findings to back it up," twisting a targeted trade-remedy tool into a global tariff regime.
Learning Resources' complaint argues the administration relied on blanket findings and failed to prove, country by country, how each nation's practices burden U.S. commerce.
The filing states bluntly: "The third time is not the charm." This reflects the plaintiffs' exhaustion with a strategy of swapping legal authorities while keeping the substance unchanged.
What toll have the tariffs already taken on small businesses?
Collective Horology co-founder Asher Rapkin says the first two rounds of tariffs cost his company more than $160,000 — and refunds from the overturned tariffs have still not arrived.
The company imports watches from Switzerland. Rapkin says there is virtually no domestic manufacturing alternative.
This means → even if the courts ultimately rule in businesses' favor, the litigation timeline and delayed refunds alone can crush a small importer's cash flow.
What does the government say, and where is the fight heading?
The White House did not respond to a request for comment. A senior administration official defended the tariffs last week, calling them a "lawful use" of Section 301 aimed at eliminating unfair trade practices — not a replacement for prior tariff programs.
From the IEEPA tariffs struck down by the courts, to the Section 122 temporary tariffs still on appeal, to the Section 301 tariffs now under challenge — the legal battleground has shifted from "does the government have tariff authority?" to "is it exercising that authority properly?"
In plain terms = the core legal question has changed: it is no longer "can you tax?" but "is this how the law says you do it?" Whether small businesses can win a third time will test the legal foundations of Trump's trade policy.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.