Small businesses sue over 10-12.5% tariffs, citing Supreme Court precedent

For the third time in a year, the Trump administration’s tariff power faces judicial scrutiny as two small businesses challenge the latest round of levies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. With the Supreme Court already having struck down IEEPA-based tariffs and a lower court ruling the interim global tariff unlawful, this new suit tests whether the executive can keep shifting statutory justifications to maintain trade barriers. The outcome will have profound implications for separation of powers and administrative law.

On July 24, 2026, two unnamed US small businesses filed a lawsuit in the US Court of International Trade in New York challenging the latest round of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration that same day. The tariffs, set at 10% and 12.5% on goods from 60 trading partners—including the European Union—ostensibly target nations allegedly failing to curb exports of goods produced with forced labor. This legal action marks a direct continuation of the constitutional and statutory tug-of-war over presidential tariff authority that has defined much of Trump’s second-term trade agenda. The plaintiffs, backed by a nonprofit legal group that has previously prevailed in tariff challenges, argue that the new levies exceed executive power because they lack the granular, country-specific forced-labor findings required under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the legal provision cited to justify them.

“

The tariffs, set at 10% and 12.5% on goods from 60 trading partners—including the European Union—ostensibly target nations allegedly failing to curb exports of goods produced with forced labor.

The lawsuit arrives against a fraught legal backdrop. On February 20, 2026, the US Supreme Court dealt a seminal blow to Trump’s tariff regime, ruling in a consolidated case that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose broad-based tariffs on America’s trading partners. That ruling nullified the administration’s primary tool for its most sweeping tariffs. In response, Trump lambasted the judiciary and swiftly enacted a temporary 10% global tariff under a separate, rarely used statutory authority—a move that the trade court subsequently ruled illegal, with the administration now in the appeals process. The July 24 tariffs, which took effect just as that temporary global levy expired, represent the third distinct legal theory the White House has deployed to maintain tariff pressure, this time pivoting to Section 301.

Section 301, historically used to combat unfair trade practices like intellectual property theft, requires a finding that a foreign country’s acts, policies, or practices are unjustifiable and burden US commerce. The plaintiffs contend that the administration’s blanket imposition on 60 countries, without individualized forced-labor determinations for each, fails to meet this standard. They further allege that the new tariffs are a transparent attempt to reimpose trade barriers already struck down by the Supreme Court, effectively circumventing judicial review. The complaint underscores a fundamental separation-of-powers question: whether the executive can repeatedly shift legal justifications to sustain a tariff policy that courts have deemed unauthorized.

For the small businesses behind the suit—likely importers or retailers reliant on affected supply chains—the stakes are existential. The 10-12.5% tariff range may appear modest compared to some prior Trump levies, but for firms operating on thin margins and lacking the scale to absorb cost increases or relocate sourcing, the impact is severe. The tariffs compound existing inflationary pressures and supply chain uncertainties, while the legal cloud leaves businesses unable to plan long-term. The case also signals that the anti-tariff legal movement, which has found success in federal courts, remains active and emboldened. The involvement of the same nonprofit legal organization that secured the Supreme Court victory suggests a well-coordinated strategy to dismantle Trump’s tariff architecture piece by piece.