Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Collective Horology, LLC v. Greer

The Liberty Justice Center is challenging the administration’s attempt to impose sweeping Section 301 tariffs on behalf of Burlap & Barrel, an American small business that builds direct, long-term relationships with smallholder farmers and producer cooperatives to bring distinctive, single-origin spices to American consumers; and Collective Horology, a California retailer and distributor that supports independent watchmakers around the globe by introducing their watches to consumers throughout the United States.

On July 24, 2026, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the administration’s latest Section 301 tariffs.

The lawsuit argues that the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) failed to satisfy the requirements Congress established before imposing sweeping new taxes on American importers. It asks the court to declare the tariffs unlawful, prevent their enforcement and preserve complete relief for Burlap & Barrel and Collective Horology, and the proposed class for affected entries, including refunds of tariffs already paid, with interest.

• Section 301 requires particularized findings about each foreign government’s conduct. USTR must identify an actionable act, policy or practice by each trading partner and determine how that specific conduct burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.
• USTR failed to establish the required connection between the alleged foreign practices and the tariffs imposed. The agency cannot treat dozens of countries with materially different laws, industries, enforcement systems and trade relationships as though they present one identical problem requiring one predetermined tariff response.
• USTR failed to show that the tariffs are an “appropriate and feasible” response. Section 301 requires USTR to explain why the chosen action would help eliminate the specific foreign practice it identified; it does not authorize tariffs imposed primarily to preserve revenue or replace tariffs invalidated or expiring under other statutes.
• The tariffs are arbitrary, unlawful and constitutionally suspect. USTR failed to provide a reasoned, record-based explanation for imposing near-uniform tariffs across 60 economies and interpreted Section 301 as a sweeping global taxing power Congress did not grant.

Section 301 authorizes USTR to investigate whether a particular foreign government’s act, policy or practice is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. When the statutory requirements are met, USTR may take responsive action, including imposing tariffs, that are “appropriate and feasible” to obtain the elimination of the identified foreign practice.

But Congress did not give USTR universal power to impose a predetermined global tariff policy. Section 301 is not a blank check. Before taxing American businesses, USTR must establish the chain Congress required: identify a particular foreign practice, demonstrate how that practice burdens or restricts U.S. commerce and explain why the selected tariff is an appropriate and feasible means of eliminating it.

In this case USTR initiated 60 nominally separate investigations into whether foreign governments had failed to prohibit or effectively enforce bans on imports made with forced labor. Less than five months after initiating those investigations, USTR completed the proceedings and imposed a nearly universal tariff regime. Its final action imposes new duties of generally 10 or 12.5 percent on products from 60 economies that collectively account for roughly 99.4% of U.S. imports.

The case does not dispute that forced labor is wrong or that governments should combat it. It challenges USTR’s attempt to use that important objective to justify tariffs of extraordinary breadth without adequately establishing the findings Congress required.

USTR failed to sufficiently explain how the particular act, policy or practice of each covered economy burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. Nor did it explain why nearly uniform tariffs on substantially all products—including lawful goods with no identified connection to forced labor—would cause foreign governments to change their import-enforcement policies. USTR also failed to meaningfully consider more targeted alternatives aimed at particular goods, industries, companies or supply chains associated with forced labor.

The complaint further alleges that USTR acted arbitrarily and capriciously by applying near-uniform tariffs across 60 economies with materially different laws, enforcement records, and trade relationships without a reasoned, record-based explanation for treating them alike.

The human consequences of that unlawful shortcut are immediate.

Burlap & Barrel is a mission-driven spice company working to reduce inequality and exploitation in global food systems. By purchasing directly from smallholder farmers and eliminating unnecessary middlemen, the company can pay its farming partners two to ten times more than they would typically receive through conventional commodity markets.

These are not anonymous or interchangeable supply chains. Burlap & Barrel has spent years building long-term relationships with farmers and producer cooperatives around the world. Those partnerships allow the company to bring distinctive products—including garlic powder from Vietnam and Guatemala, chilies from Turkey, sea salt from Tanzania and Herbes de Provence from France—to American kitchens while helping small producers retain more of the value they create. These particular varieties cannot simply be replaced with domestically grown alternatives.

Instead of targeting exploitation, these tariffs punish an American business whose entire model is built around transparent supply chains, equitable relationships and better compensation for small farmers.

Collective Horology likewise supports independent watchmakers by introducing and distributing their watches—including those made by American, Swiss and other European craftspeople—to consumers throughout the United States. The tariffs increase the cost of the imported watches it sells and impair its ability to support the independent manufacturers and craftspeople on which its business depends.

There is also substantial evidence that this outcome was predetermined. Senior administration officials said that new tariff policies would keep tariff revenue “virtually unchanged” after the Supreme Court invalidated the administration’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and before the temporary Section 122 tariffs expired. Some of those statements were made before USTR completed—or, in some cases, even began—the investigations supposedly supporting this new tariff regime.

The final USTR notice repeatedly states that the rates, scope and exemptions were selected “in accordance with the specific direction of the President.” The challenged tariffs largely preserve the structure and revenue of the administration’s invalidated IEEPA tariffs and expiring Section 122 tariffs.

Congress assigned USTR the responsibility to make the statutory findings and exercise the independent judgment required by Section 301. Presidential demands for a particular tariff rate, scope or revenue target cannot substitute for that judgment.

The constitutional stakes extend far beyond Burlap & Barrel and Collective Horology. The power to impose tariffs is part of Congress’s Article I authority to tax and regulate foreign commerce. Congress may authorize the administration to act, but they must remain within the boundaries Congress established. If Section 301 could be interpreted to permit tariffs of virtually any scope on nearly any product from nearly any country, based on standards that impose no enforceable limit, it would transfer one of Congress’s core constitutional powers to the executive branch without a meaningful limiting principle.

“For the third time, the administration has taken a limited tariff authority and attempted to stretch it into a worldwide taxing power,” said Jeffrey Schwab, Senior Counsel and Director of Litigation at the Liberty Justice Center. “Changing the statute does not change the law. The Constitution gives the power to impose tariffs to Congress, and when Congress authorizes the executive branch to act, the administration must obey the limits Congress imposed. We will continue fighting for American businesses and consumers—and for the separation of powers—each time the government attempts to evade those limits.”