Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. Trump

On March 9, 2026, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging President Trump’s attempt to reimpose broad global tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision striking down the prior tariff regime imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

After the Supreme Court held that the IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, the administration announced a new plan: a global tariff beginning at 10 percent imposed under Section 122, and justified as a response to alleged “fundamental international payments problems” and “large and serious United States balance‑of‑payments deficits.”

But the United States is not facing such a crisis. Section 122 was designed to address short‑term, balance‑of‑payments emergencies in a fixed‑exchange‑rate world—not to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly all imports based on long-standing trade deficits.

More fundamentally, the Constitution gives Congress—not the President—the power to impose tariffs and taxes. The Supreme Court reemphasized this principle in the case that included V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the President cannot rely on broad statutory language to claim sweeping tariff authority that Congress never clearly granted.

By attempting to stretch Section 122 into a catch‑all tariff power, the administration is once again bypassing Congress and placing the burden of unlawful tariffs on American small businesses and consumers.

Why this case matters

This case raises a fundamental question about who has the authority to impose tariffs on the American people.

Under the Constitution, the power to impose taxes and tariffs belongs to Congress. That principle ensures that major economic decisions affecting American businesses and consumers are made by elected representatives and subject to democratic accountability. Presidents may act only within the limits Congress has clearly set.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides a narrow, temporary authority for the President to respond to genuine international financial emergencies, such as a serious balance-of-payments crisis. But the United States today faces no such emergency. By attempting to reinterpret Section 122 as a broad tariff authority based on long-standing trade deficits, the administration is asserting the power to impose sweeping taxes on nearly all imports without congressional approval.

If that interpretation were accepted, it would dramatically expand presidential power over trade policy and allow future presidents of either party to impose tariffs across the entire economy simply by redefining ordinary economic conditions as a “crisis.”

This case seeks to prevent that outcome. It asks the courts to reaffirm the constitutional limits on executive power and ensure that the authority to tax the American people remains where the Constitution places it—with Congress.

For small businesses like Burlap & Barrel and Basic Fun!, the stakes are immediate and practical: unlawful tariffs can disrupt supply chains, force price increases for American consumers, and threaten jobs and investment. But the case also has broader implications for the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers that protects all Americans.

The case is brought on behalf of two American businesses directly harmed by the tariffs.

Burlap and Barrel, Inc. is a mission-driven spice importer that sources single-origin spices directly from smallholder farmers around the world. By working directly with farmers and importing high-quality spices into the United States, Burlap & Barrel supports sustainable agriculture abroad while bringing unique products to American consumers. Read more about them here.

Basic Fun, Inc. is a U.S. toy company that owns the rights to beloved classic brands including Care Bears, Lite-Brite, Tonka, and other iconic toys. The company relies on specialized global manufacturing to produce safe, high-quality toys at scale. The Section 122 tariffs impose immediate and significant cost increases on products with long production lead times, forcing the company to choose between raising prices for American families or cutting jobs and investment in the United States. Read more about them here.

“The Supreme Court has already ruled that the President cannot unilaterally impose worldwide tariffs,” said Jeffrey Schwab, Director of Litigation at the Liberty Justice Center and lead attorney in Liberty Justice Center’s recent U.S. Supreme Court win in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. “Section 122 authorizes temporary tariffs for certain economic conditions that do not currently exist; it is not a general license for the President to tax the American people for reasons Congress never intended.”

Once again, the Liberty Justice Center is defending both small businesses and the constitutional separation of powers.

As demonstrated in the Liberty Justice Center’s landmark victory in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump—which culminated in a 6–3 Supreme Court decision striking down the administration’s prior tariffs—no president has the authority to single-handedly impose taxes on the American people. That power belongs to Congress.

The Liberty Justice Center is fighting to ensure that statutory delegations of Congressional power to the executive, like Section 122, cannot be stretched beyond recognition to give the President broad power to impose tariffs, which the Supreme Court has already rejected.