(The Center Square) – Two new businesses have sued to block President Donald Trump's 10% tariffs, even as a federal appeals court considers whether to lift an injunction already protecting two small businesses and the State of Washington from paying them.
The government disclosed the new lawsuits Monday in its reply brief, arguing that additional importers are waiting to file until the court decides whether to stay the underlying ruling. Cleaner's Supply Inc., a New York cleaning supply company, sued May 25, and Tarte Cosmetics, a U.S. cosmetics company, sued May 29. Both seek relief from the same tariffs a federal trade court struck down last month.
The Court of International Trade ruled 2–1 on May 7 that Trump used improper economic benchmarks to justify tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and permanently enjoined their application to spice importer Burlap & Barrel, toy company Basic Fun, and the State of Washington. The Federal Circuit entered an administrative stay on May 12, temporarily freezing the injunction while it considers whether to grant a full stay pending appeal.
The Yale Budget Lab, a nonpartisan research center, has estimated the tariffs could cost the average U.S. household $600 to $800 annually.
The Section 122 tariffs are Trump's second attempt to impose broad import duties after the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in February that his earlier tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act exceeded his authority.
Trump signed the Section 122 proclamation hours after that ruling. A lower court has now struck down the Section 122 tariffs as well, although that ruling remains under appeal, and the administration has argued the duties are necessary to stabilize U.S. trade policy during a transition to new tariff measures expected this summer.
In its reply brief, the government argued the plaintiffs cannot agree on a single alternative interpretation of the statute and said the presidential proclamation relied on multiple economic measures beyond the trade deficit. It also contended the plaintiffs' position is internally inconsistent – arguing that if they expect to lose, they are not harmed by a stay, but if they expect to win, they may be unable to recover losses if the government prevails.
Burlap & Barrel and Basic Fun argued in a filing last week that the harm from the tariffs extends beyond direct payments. The New York spice importer says it has paused hiring, scaled back shipments and delayed new product development.
The Florida toy company says reduced margins could push it toward breaching loan covenants, potentially triggering costly renegotiations.
Both argue those harms cannot be remedied by a later refund. Tarte Cosmetics raised similar concerns in its complaint, noting that "the availability and scope of refunds absent judicial relief remains uncertain."
A coalition of 14 states led by Oregon argued the government's interpretation is fundamentally flawed, contending the term "balance-of-payments deficits" referred specifically to pressures on U.S. gold reserves under the fixed exchange-rate system that ended in 1973. The states also pointed to prior litigation in which the government described trade deficits as "conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits," a position they say contradicts its current argument.
Advancing American Freedom, a conservative group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence, filed the only outside brief in the case supporting the plaintiffs.
"No president should be able to exercise powers reserved to Congress on a whim," AAF General Counsel J. Marc Wheat said.
The government also received an administrative notice Monday, warning it had failed to file a required document, cautioning the omission could result in dismissal. It filed the document hours later.
With the briefing now complete, the Federal Circuit can rule at any time. The administrative stay keeping the tariffs in place for all plaintiffs remains in effect. The Section 122 tariffs are set to expire July 24.
Commented