Two small U.S. businesses have filed a legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s latest tariffs imposed on imports from 60 trading partners, arguing that the administration exceeded its legal authority. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, contends that the tariffs—like earlier rounds introduced under Trump—lack the detailed, country-specific findings required to justify such broad measures.

The Trump administration announced the new tariffs on July 24, imposing rates of 10 percent and 12.5 percent on imports from trading partners including the European Union. The tariffs target goods allegedly produced using forced labor and were introduced following the expiration of a temporary 10 percent global tariff. The White House and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not immediately comment on the lawsuit.

Tariffs have been a key component of Trump’s trade policy, used to leverage renegotiations of trade agreements and address what the administration views as unfair practices by other countries. However, many of the president’s earlier tariffs, including his broadest measures, were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in February. The court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not grant the president unilateral authority to impose such tariffs, invalidating several prior actions.

In response to that decision, the administration imposed a new temporary global tariff of 10 percent under a different legal provision—a move also challenged in court and subsequently ruled unlawful. The administration appealed that ruling. This latest round of tariffs was imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law designed to combat unfair trade practices. Unlike IEEPA or the temporary tariff authority used previously, Section 301 has been regularly employed by past presidents.

However, the lawsuit filed by the two businesses argues that Trump’s application of Section 301 deviates sharply from historical use. The plaintiffs assert that Section 301 tariffs traditionally address specific countries or industries rather than imposing broadly uniform tariffs across a wide range of imports. Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney at the Liberty Justice Center representing the plaintiffs, stated that the law does not authorize taxing “substantially all imports from substantially all countries at pre-established rates.”

The suit seeks to have the tariffs declared unlawful, prevent their enforcement, and preserve the right of importers to claim refunds for any duties paid under the tariffs.

The businesses involved in the case are Burlap & Barrel, a spice importer that previously challenged the global tariff, and Collective Horology, a watch retailer based in California. Past legal challenges to Trump’s tariff policies have drawn support from Democratic-led states. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield indicated that his state is reviewing potential legal actions to contest the new tariffs, arguing that the measures will increase costs for American consumers without effectively addressing forced labor issues abroad.