New lawsuit seeks to force return of collected tariffs following court ruling
A new lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade seeks to force the Trump administration to return tariffs it collected under the president's 'Liberation Day' announcement now that the court has ruled them unlawful.
Chapter1 LLC, a Las Vegas-based skincare start-up, said it paid nearly $23,000 under the challenged tariffs when it imported a custom machine to mix its serum and toner products from China.
The suit says the company's owner, 25-year-old Ali Shaubzada, ordered the machine in the fall, using most of his savings and business lines of credit. It arrived in the U.S. earlier this month, with the duties outpacing the roughly $16,000 cost of the machine itself.
'To pay for this unexpectedly large bill, Ali had to take out a personal loan,' the complaint reads.
The class-action suit seeks to recover Chapter1's tariff payment and the billions in payments made by businesses across the country following Trump's announcements.
'Hundreds of thousands of other American businesses have exactly the same claim, based on exactly the same legal theory, against the United States: Each importer has a claim against the United States for repayment of the tariffs it paid,' the lawsuit states.
Chapter1 is represented by Gerstein Harrow.
The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
The suit, filed Thursday, comes a day after the trade court invalidated the bulk of Trump's tariffs.
The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the administration's broad interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a federal law that authorizes the president to impose necessary economic sanctions during a national emergency, is unconstitutional.
Trump previously cited trade deficits as emergency justification to impose his 'Liberation Day' tariffs, which imposed a 10 percent rate on all imports and higher, reciprocal tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners. Thursday's ruling also blocked Trump's IEEPA tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China dating back to February that pointed to an influx of fentanyl coming across the border.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily lifted the order on Thursday but is expected to issue a new ruling after receiving written arguments from the parties in the coming days.
Separately, a federal district judge in the nation's capital blocked Trump's use of IEEPA in response to another lawsuit.
The administration has appealed that ruling, too. But the judge provided two weeks before his order goes into effect, meaning that no court injunction is currently blocking any of Trump's tariffs, for now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Poland Presidential Exit Polls Show Conservative Historian in Lead
With the vote still too close to call, a projection indicates the Trump-backed candidate is winning.
Newsweek
27 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Rand Paul Thinks There Are Enough GOP Senators to Block Trump Budget Bill
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said Sunday that he's confident there are enough members of his party to vote against President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful" spending bill amid concerns that it does not make enough cuts to spending. Newsweek reached out to the White House and Paul's office by email outside of normal business hours on Sunday for comment. Why It Matters Trump made the passage of a new spending bill one of his centerpiece policy goals for his second administration, aiming to wrap everything up into one single bill, the much-touted "big, beautiful bill" that will allow him to pursue his raft of policies. The bill would extend the president's 2017 tax cats, reduce taxes for individuals and corporations, and add new exemptions for tipped workers and overtime pay. Critics also warn that the bill's spending cuts would prove insufficient to pay for the proposed tax cuts and other spending priorities. However, some Republicans have voiced reservations about supporting the bill, with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimating that it will add $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. The House of Representatives passed the bill by just one vote, 215-214, as two Republicans broke ranks and joined every House Democrat in opposing the bill. What To Know Paul has spoken out against the spending bill and said he will not vote to pass it due to the inclusion of a mechanism that would allow Congress to increase the nation's debt limit by $5 trillion. On Sunday, the senator appeared on CBS News' Face the Nation when host Margaret Brennan asked, "Do you have three other Republicans who will stand with you to block this bill?" Paul responded: "I think there are four of us at this point, and I would be very surprised if the bill at least is not modified in a good direction." He continued: "I want to vote for it. I'm for the tax cuts. I voted for the tax cuts before, I want the tax cuts to be permanent, but at the same time I don't want to raise the debt ceiling $5 trillion, so I've told them if you take the debt ceiling off the bill, in all likelihood I can vote for what the agreement is on the rest of the bill. And it doesn't have to be perfect to my liking, but if I vote for the $5 trillion debt, who's left in Washington that cares about the debt? The GOP will own the debt once they vote for this." The GOP senator said Trump's "big, beautiful bill" increases spending by about $320 billion for the military and for the border. "To put that perspective, that's more than all the [Department of Government Efficiency] DOGE cuts that we found so far, so the increase in spending put into this bill exceeds the DOGE cuts," he said Sunday. Paul then cited what he called inflated spending on the southern border wall, noting that the Trump administration managed to carry out its deportations without needing new spending or equipment and therefore deeming such expenditure in the bill is "asking for too much money." "In the end, the way you add it up to see if it actually is going to save money or add money is how much debt are they going to borrow—$5 trillion over two years is an enormous amount," he said. Brennan: Do you have three other Republicans who will stand with you to block this bill? Paul: I think there are four of us at this point — Acyn (@Acyn) June 1, 2025 What People Are Saying Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "The American people, like the Great People of Kentucky, do not support Biden spending levels and $5T in new debt. Therefore, I will not. It's simple." Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, wrote on X on Sunday: "The House Budget process focused on $1.5 trillion in reduced spending and ignored the looming debt crisis. I am preparing a report: FY2025 Budget Reconciliation, Facts & Figures. I hope to complete it shortly and hold a hearing on it before we take any more Senate votes on the budget." President Donald Trump on Truth Social last week: "THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL" has PASSED the House of Representatives! This is arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!" He added a message to Senate Republicans: "Now, it's time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! There is no time to waste." House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, in a statement on Thursday: "Today, the House has passed generational, nation-shaping legislation that reduces spending, permanently lowers taxes for families and job creators, secures the border, unleashes American energy dominance, restores peace through strength, and makes government work more efficiently and effectively for all Americans." What Happens Next? Other GOP senators, including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Josh Hawley of Missouri, have also raised concerns about the bill, and have voiced concerns ahead of a vote on the bill, which the Senate has set to happen before the Fourth of July.
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Ukraine's surprise strike deep in Russia — an excellent way to push Putin to talk peace
Hand it to the Ukrainians: They're not only fighting heroically on, more than three years after Moscow launched its savage and utterly unprovoked war to destroy their nation, they're fighting with cheek and style. The latest, of course, is Sunday's surprise drone strikes on airbases deep inside Russia, targeting strategic warplanes that have been pummeling mostly-civilian targets in Ukraine. It counts as an intelligence coup, too: The drones were infiltrated to near their final targets over months, with Vladimir Putin's massive internal-surveillance agencies left utterly in the dark. Advertisement Then again, Vlad's secret police were caught clueless back when the Wagner Group launched its aborted coup two years back: Putin should be losing sleep over what else his minions might be missing. And any Russian patriots looking to save their country from his disastrous misrule can only be emboldened. Nor can Moscow complain that Kyiv launched these strikes on the eve of a fresh set of peace talks: Putin is the one who's refusing any kind of ceasefire, and he's had his forces in overdrive ever since President Donald Trump launched his diplomatic drive to stop the slaughter. Advertisement Kyiv was entirely right not to let Washington know these strikes were coming, by the way: As the Israelis will tell you, the DC defense establishment has a recently-proven track record of broadcasting our friends' war plans against even mutual enemies like Iran. A single American loose lip could've alerted Moscow to the operation — turning it into from a Russian humiliation into a bitter loss for Ukraine. Adding to Kyiv's panache points here, the damaged planes — $7 billion worth, the Ukrainians estimate even as the Russians of course claim the whole thing failed — included many of the strategic bombers central to Moscow's ultimate 'doomsday' deterrent. Advertisement That is: Putin and his spokes-toads have spent the last three years pointedly hinting they'd go nuclear if the West helps Ukraine 'too much'; it's pure poetic justice if his refusal to make peace has now left Russia vulnerable to a nuclear first strike. It's more clear than ever that Putin won't make peace unless and until continued his warmaking threatens him. Ukraine's audacious attack had done just that; the Senate should double down on the message by passing the bipartisan secondary-sanctions bill ASAP. Make Putin fear for his own survival; it's all he truly cares about.
