Importers are taking direct legal action against the federal government’s newest trade duties, filing a class action lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) to halt the implementation of newly announced Section 301 tariffs.
The lawsuit (Burlap and Barrel v. Jamieson Greer, CIT #26-03345), filed on July 24, challenges tariffs announced on July 23 that target imports across 60 trading partner economies. Brought on behalf of a proposed class of affected importers, the suit seeks an immediate injunction to bar duty collection and obtain relief for businesses facing these new costs.
A “Preordained Result” and a Policy Workaround
The plaintiffs—spice importer Burlap and Barrel and watch retailer Collective Horology—argued that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) conducted an investigation into foreign forced labor laws that was not based on a reasoned explanation. Instead, the suit alleges the outcome was a “preordained result” designed as a backdoor attempt to preserve broad tariff policies previously enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Both statutory mechanisms faced intense legal challenges earlier this year, with the CIT ruling in favor of Burlap and Barrel on May 7 to grant injunctive relief against Section 122 tariffs.
“Section 301 is not a freestanding authorization to tax substantially all imports from substantially all trading partners at rates selected to replicate the invalidated IEEPA tariff regime rather than to eliminate identified foreign practices,” the plaintiffs stated in the complaint.
Key Legal Grounds for the Challenge
The filing outlines several critical arguments challenging the validity of the new Section 301 action:
-
Arbitrary and Capricious Execution: Plaintiffs assert that the USTR failed to provide record-based explanations for applying near-uniform duty rates across 60 distinct economies that possess vastly different trade profiles and enforcement records.
-
Replication of Struck-Down Regimes: Statements from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, alongside the timing and structure of the rates, indicate the duties were designed to maintain baseline import taxes rather than serve as a targeted, country-specific tool against forced labor.
-
Preservation of Past Exceptions: The lawsuit points out that the new action mirrors previous IEEPA and Section 122 tariffs by maintaining broad duties alongside nearly identical categorical exclusions and product carve-outs.
-
Violation of the Nondelegation Doctrine: The complaint argues that Section 301 contains constitutional limits defining it strictly as a targeted trade-remedy statute, which does not grant executive authority to levy broad, countrywide tariffs to advance general policy objectives.
Broadening Legal Pushback Across the Industry
The proposed class encompasses all importers of record that have paid or will be required to pay the Section 301 duties on merchandise entered into the United States on or after July 24.
The class action is not the only challenge hitting the trade court. A separate, parallel lawsuit (Learning Resources v. United States, CIT #26-03347) was filed on the same day by educational supply maker Learning Resources. The company similarly argues that the global Section 301 tariffs lack the individualized, country-by-country statutory findings required by law and violate the nondelegation doctrine.
As these legal challenges mount in the CIT, importers face an evolving compliance landscape while the court considers requests to enjoin the collection of the newly instituted duties.
