“Trump sued hours after new tariffs take effect, as experts say they may not hold up”

What actually happened

The Trump administration imposed new tariffs on Friday under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing trading partners' failure to curb forced-labor practices in supply chains. Hours later, the Liberty Justice Center sued in the U.S. Court of International Trade on behalf of two small businesses, arguing the tariffs are a pretext to rebuild the global tariff regime the Supreme Court invalidated under IEEPA in February.

Key facts

• Lawsuit filed same day: the lawsuit "filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the administration's replacement tariffs imposed under Section 301," with "the new Section 301 duties took effect at 12:01 a.m. EDT."
• Timing link to prior IEEPA ruling: "On March 12, 2026, less than three weeks after the Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize presidential tariffs, USTR initiated 60 investigations into whether the identified economies effectively prohibited imports made with forced labor."
• Same plaintiffs' firm won the earlier case: "LJC is the same group that I worked with on V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, the IEEPA tariff case decided by the Supreme Court in February."
• Not all quoted experts agree the tariffs are doomed: Georgetown's Peter Harrell called them potentially unlawful, but former USTR general counsel Greta Peisch told CNBC the administration "followed the legal procedures required" and called the standard to argue against "pretty difficult," per the article. KPMG's Andrew Siciliano added the tariffs' "extensive record" may make them "harder to unwind."
• Scale of the action: independent reporting from NBC News and the Liberty Justice Center's own filing describe the tariffs as covering 60 trading economies; CNBC's article states "more than 80 countries," a discrepancy worth tracking against the official USTR notice.

What to watch for

• Watch whether the Court of International Trade issues a preliminary injunction, as it did with the IEEPA case, or lets the tariffs stand pending fuller review.
• The 60-vs-80-country discrepancy between CNBC's figure and other outlets' reporting should resolve once USTR's Federal Register notice is checked directly.
• Peisch and Siciliano's more cautious readings suggest this could run longer than the IEEPA fight; a quick loss for the administration would validate the "may not hold up" framing, a slow grind would soften it.