Burlap & Barrel and Collective Horology have asked the U.S. Court of International Trade to strike down new tariffs of 10% and 12.5% on goods from 60 trading partners. The duties took effect as a temporary 10% global tariff expired and include imports from the European Union.
The administration tied the measures to allegations that the affected partners were not doing enough to prevent exports made with forced labor. The plaintiffs do not ask the court to resolve the labor-abuse question; they argue that the legal mechanism used to tax imports exceeds presidential authority.
The duties rely on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Unlike emergency-powers statutes used in earlier tariff rounds, Section 301 has a long enforcement history, but it generally targets identified practices in particular countries or industries after a defined investigation.
The lawsuit argues that applying preset rates to nearly all imports from a broad group of countries requires detailed, country-specific findings that the administration did not make. That distinction is commercially important because a global response converts a trade-remedy tool into a general import tax.
The case follows two defeats for earlier tariff programs. The Supreme Court ruled in February that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize broad unilateral tariffs, and a temporary global duty imposed under another provision was also rejected by the trade court. That second ruling is under appeal.
Burlap & Barrel imports spices, while California-based Collective Horology sells watches. Their challenge translates a constitutional dispute into direct operating costs: importers must pay duties while litigating, adjust prices or margins, and preserve their right to refunds if the tariffs are invalidated.
The complaint seeks a declaration that the new duties are unlawful, an order stopping enforcement and protection of refund eligibility. The White House and the U.S. Trade Representative had not issued an immediate response, and Democratic-led states were considering whether to join a third challenge.
The next stage will determine whether Section 301 can support a measure defined by a cross-country social-policy objective rather than targeted findings. A rapid injunction would affect import costs immediately; a prolonged proceeding would leave companies financing duties while courts define the boundary between trade enforcement and presidential taxation.
