The Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade on July 24, 2026, challenging a new set of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The legal challenge was mounted on behalf of two small U.S. businesses: Burlap & Barrel, a New York-based single-origin spice retailer, and Collective Horology, a California-based watch retailer and distributor.
The lawsuit, Burlap & Barrel, Inc. et al v. Greer et al, asks the court to declare the new tariffs unlawful, halt their enforcement, and secure full refunds—with interest—for affected importers.
The duties took effect at 12:01 a.m. EDT on July 24, immediately following the expiration of a 150-day temporary surcharge under Section 122. The new Section 301 measures place a 10% or 12.5% tariff on goods coming from 80 countries, covering roughly 99.4% of all U.S. imports.
According to the complaint, the administration cannot move an existing global tariff program from one statute to another without adhering to specific legal boundaries set by Congress. Section 301 allows for tariffs against foreign acts or practices only after the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) completes targeted findings and chooses a response designed to eliminate those specific practices.
The legal action traces back to March 12, 2026, less than three weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize presidential tariffs. Following that ruling, the USTR opened 60 separate investigations into whether foreign economies were failing to ban imports produced with forced labor.
On July 23, hours before the Section 122 surcharge was set to expire, the USTR concluded the process by imposing tariffs on products from all 60 investigated economies. The decision followed a three-day public hearing and the receipt of more than 1,600 comments. Official notices stated that the rates and exemptions were set “in accordance with the specific direction of the President.”
The Liberty Justice Center argues that the USTR turned separate investigations into a standardized global tariff program without documenting country-by-country evidence. The suit alleges the agency failed to detail specific illegal practices for each nation, explain how those practices harm U.S. commerce, or show how broad import taxes would convince foreign governments to adjust their policies.
Plaintiffs named in the suit stated that the blanket tariffs penalize companies with clean supply chains without addressing the underlying issues.
“Burlap & Barrel was built around transparent supply chains, direct sourcing and long-term relationships with farmers,” said Ethan Frisch, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of Burlap & Barrel. “These tariffs would punish a responsible American business, and the farmers we work with, without showing how taxes on our spices would address the policies of foreign governments that USTR says it is targeting.”
Asher Rapkin, Co-Founder of Collective Horology, expressed similar concerns regarding independent watchmakers.
“Collective Horology exists to bring independent watchmakers’ work to collectors around the world,” Rapkin said. “We know the makers we work with personally, and forced labor has no place in what they do. These tariffs level that accusation across entire countries, and it’s small businesses like ours writing the checks, alongside the very makers we champion, without anyone showing how taxing our imports fixes anything. We’re in this fight for them as much as for ourselves.”
Attorneys for the plaintiffs contend that the administration is reusing a single tariff strategy across different legal mechanisms. The Liberty Justice Center previously secured the Supreme Court ruling invalidating the IEEPA tariffs and won a challenge against the Section 122 tariffs in the Court of International Trade, though the Section 122 surcharge remained active during a government appeal.
“This is the third time the administration has attempted to impose its global tariff policy without following the statutory limits,” said Jeffrey Schwab, Senior Counsel and Director of Litigation at the Liberty Justice Center. “Section 301 is a targeted, country-specific and practice-specific remedial authority. It is not a freestanding authorization to tax substantially all imports from substantially all countries at preestablished rates.”
Leadership at the public interest law firm emphasized that the case focuses on executive authority rather than general trade policy.
“Forced labor is morally indefensible, but an important objective does not give the government permission to ignore the law,” said Sara Albrecht, Chairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center. “The administration allowed one global tariff to expire and immediately replaced it with another under a different statute. Changing the statute doesn’t change the law. Every tariff authority has limits, and every administration must respect them.”
Albrecht added, “This case is not about whether tariffs are wise economic policy. It is about requiring the Executive Branch to follow the law Congress enacted.”
READ: Fake Records, Real Cash: Four Minnesota Men Plead Guilty In $2.2M AI Medicaid Scam
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
