Spice company wins tariff suit

A spice importer just became the face of a much bigger tariff fight. On May 7, the U.S. Court of International Trade said the Trump administration’s 10% global tariff was unlawful and gave relief to three plaintiffs — New York spice company Burlap & Barrel, toy maker Basic Fun, and Washington state. (courthousenews.com) That matters because this was Trump’s backup tariff plan after the Supreme Court knocked out his broader “Liberation Day” tariffs in February. And it matters because the win is real, but narrow. (jurist.org) ### What did the spice company actually win? Burlap & Barrel won a permanent injunction against the tariff as applied to it. The court said Customs must stop collecting the 10% surcharge from the company and refund what it already paid under that policy. (polsinelli.com) Basic Fun and Washington state got the same relief. Everyone else did not. ### Why was a spice importer in this case? Because Burlap & Barrel imports single-origin spices from abroad, so a flat global tariff hits directly and fast. This was not some abstract constitutional argument for the company — it was a cost shock on core inventory. The suit was filed in March with backing from Liberty Justice Center, alongside Basic Fun, which imports toys. (courthousenews.com) ### What law was the fight about? The administration used Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That law lets a president use temporary import surcharges in a balance-of-payments crisis. The trade court’s majority said this tariff did not fit the statute Congress wrote, so the 10% surcharge was “invalid” and unauthorized. Basically, the judges were not saying tariffs are always illegal. (courthousenews.com) They were saying this legal tool was the wrong one. ### Why only these plaintiffs? Because standing decided the shape of the remedy. The court found Burlap & Barrel, Basic Fun, and Washington had shown concrete injury. Most of the other states in the companion case were dismissed for lack of standing. So the judges blocked the tariff only for the parties that cleared that threshold, not for every importer in the country. (libertyjusticecenter.org) ### Does this kill the tariff for everyone? No — and that is the part people miss. The ruling says the tariff is unlawful, but the injunction is plaintiff-specific. For most importers, the 10% duty still applies unless they get their own relief or a higher court broadens the effect. That turns this from one clean national reset into a litigation map. (courthousenews.com) ### So what happens next? An appeal is expected, and the next stop would be the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The administration could also ask for a stay while the appeal plays out. At the same time, trade lawyers are already reading this as pressure on the White House to lean harder on other tariff authorities, like Section 301 or Section 232, instead of Section 122. (courthousenews.com) ### Why does this matter beyond spices? Because it shows how broad tariffs can survive politically but still fail on the exact legal mechanism. For import-heavy businesses, the choice is now sharper — absorb the cost, rework sourcing, or sue. Burlap & Barrel’s win does not end the tariff fight. But it does hand other companies a road map. (polsinelli.com) ### Bottom line? This was a real court win, not a symbolic one. Burlap & Barrel gets relief from the 10% tariff. But the broader system barely moved — at least not yet. Unless appeals change the scope, this is less “tariffs are over” than “the companies willing to litigate may get out first.” (courthousenews.com) (bloomberg.com) (jurist.org)