New York‑based small businesses are heading to the Court of International Trade this week to contest the Trump administration’s latest forced‑labor tariffs. Spice importer Burlap & Barrel and luxury watch importer Collective Horology argue the duties, imposed on products from 60 trading partners, overstep the authority granted by Congress under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Legal challenge claims tariffs are arbitrary
The plaintiffs, represented by the nonprofit Liberty Justice Center, say the administration relied on “generalized assertions” that labor policies in the targeted economies cause concrete economic harm to the United States. They label the tariffs “arbitrary and capricious,” asserting that the government failed to establish genuine forced‑labor cases before levying the 10%‑12.5% duties.
Administration’s stated purpose
According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the tariffs aim to pressure foreign governments that have not enacted laws to combat forced labor, thereby protecting American consumers and workers from products tainted by exploitation. The administration argues that the measures are a lawful use of Section 301 to address a serious human‑rights concern, not a revenue‑raising scheme.
Expert criticism of the tariff approach
Former trade official Ambassador Alan Wm. Wolff, who helped draft the forced‑labor statute, filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs. Wolff warned that Section 301 was intended for “a rifle shot of retaliation against a single foreign country” with a verified violation, not a broad, pre‑emptive test applied to dozens of nations. He told States Newsroom that the statute has never been used in this way and that a genuine forced‑labor policy would include periodic reviews and the possibility of lifting duties.
Background of the litigation
The Liberty Justice Center has a history of challenging what it calls government overreach. In February, the organization secured a Supreme Court victory that declared the Trump administration’s emergency tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unconstitutional. After that ruling, President Trump quickly enacted a new 10% tariff on global imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute limited to 150 days.
When the 150‑day limit expired, the administration opened forced‑labor investigations under Section 301, announcing findings for nearly all U.S. trading partners just as the earlier tariffs lapsed. Liberty Justice Center CEO Sara Albrecht described the new tariffs as “blatantly pretextual,” saying they simply replace the IEEPA duties that were struck down.
Impact on the plaintiffs
Burlap & Barrel, a New York company with warehouses in Maryland and Nevada, imports spices from 22 countries. Collective Horology, based in California, brings high‑end mechanical watches from six European makers into the United States. Both firms claim the tariffs have forced them to divert working capital to the government while they await court resolution.
Albrecht noted that Customs and Border Protection is still processing roughly $166 billion in refunds for businesses that paid IEEPA duties, and that the new Section 301 tariffs add another financial burden.
What’s at stake
The lawsuit seeks class‑status certification, which would allow the case to represent all small businesses affected by the forced‑labor tariffs. If successful, the plaintiffs could force the administration to revisit its methodology and potentially roll back the duties.
While the plaintiffs argue the tariffs are illegal, the Trump administration maintains that protecting American workers from forced labor is a core national‑security and moral imperative. The outcome of this case will shape how aggressively the United States uses trade tools to address human‑rights abuses abroad.
Original reporting: The Connecticut Mirror — read the source article.
