Along the roughly 7,500-mile journey that begins at China's deep Shenzhen, there are 19 shipments featured in Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Learning Resources, an educational toy company in Vernon Hills, Illinois.
Ultimately, containers of puzzle cards, children's binoculars and other products arrive at US ports, and Waldenberg faces a difficult and expensive decision. He could either pay the high air tariffs Trump has imposed on most foreign goods, or perhaps negate his revenues and abandon at least some of his much-needed inventory.
Waldenberg hopes to do a little of both. However, he also chose a more aggressive course of action and joined the roster of enemies who legally challenge Trump's ability to first issue a portion of the tariffs.
In almost four weeks of the endless, costly world trade war, Trump faces a barrage of lawsuits from state officials, small businesses and even political groups he once allied.
The lawsuit brings something very important, not just because tariffs shook financial markets and threatened the US to a recession. The legal challenge is also testing Trump's claims to power, showing the difficult calculations his enemy faces in determining whether to fight back and risk retaliation.
Despite the fact that many organizations, including the US Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable, have been critical of the president's tariffs and lobbying to mitigate the impact, none of the lawsuits filed this month are supported by major business lobbying groups. The Chamber of Commerce discussed personally filing a lawsuit, but ultimately determined that it was “not the best course of action at this time,” said Neil Bradley, executive vice president of the group.
“Involving the administration to achieve rapid and immediate reductions in tariffs has the best chance of supporting businesses,” he said.
Instead, the fight will be left to a scattered but growing list of lawsuits, including Waldenburg, whom lawyers sued on Tuesday. In an interview, he said that tariffs were so expensive that there was “nothing to lose” by taking legal action.
“I'm going to do everything on my own to keep our company healthy, but we stepped in,” he said.
Last week, dozens of Democratic lawyers in states, including Colorado, New York and Oregon, urged federal judges to block many of Trump's tariffs on the grounds that they “overturned the constitutional order and caused chaos to the US economy.”
The White House did not respond to requests for comment. The Business Roundtable also did not respond to requests for comment.
At the heart of the legal conflict is the International Emergency Economic Power Act, a law of the 1970s, which allows the president to order trade, set sanctions and limit foreign investment to drive away enemies abroad.
Trump, which he described as an effort to stop fentanyl flow to the United States, to impose his first obligation on China's exports. He also used these powers to establish a 10% tax on exports from almost every other country, justifying what he calls “mutual” tariffs. For evidence of the emergency, Trump mainly pointed to the trade deficit, the difference between what he exports and imports to other countries.
There was no president before Trump imposed such import taxes under the emergency law, but he never mentioned the term “tariffs.” That omission sets the stage for a series of pivotal legal conflicts, with Ted Murphy, co-leader of the global arbitration, trade and advocacy practice at law firm Sidley Austin, sticking to some of the ways in which the law really empowers the president “without actually expressing tariffs.”
The latest lawsuit arrived Thursday from the Pacific Legal Foundation. This is a group where a relationship has been reported with conservative donor Charles Koch. On behalf of clothing companies, board game designers and other small businesses, the group has imposed tariffs on Trump on 145% of Chinese products, which are “illegal and unconstitutional,” causing prices to be higher for American companies.
Jamey Stegmaier, co-founder of Stonemaier Games and plaintiff in the case, said his company has more than 250,000 board games and other products that cannot be easily imported from China unless it is willing to pay “around $1.5 million total tariff tax.”
The decision to sue was “the right thing,” but it was still a difficult choice, Stegmeier said, citing the fear of retaliation from Trump. “To oppose the administration now is like a scary proposal,” he said.
Another legal group with ties to Koch and conservative investor Leonard A. Leo appealed earlier this month on behalf of a Florida company facing high costs from presidential tariffs in China. Leo is co-chair of the Federal Association and advises Trump on his judicial appointment.
The organization behind the lawsuit, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, does not disclose its full range of donors, making it difficult for any like-minded peer to determine the exact driving financial strength behind the new tariff case.
In another lawsuit, two members of one of the largest tribes in the United States alleged that Trump's tariffs on Canada violated their treaty rights, and they asked the judge to suspend taxes on imports arriving at major points of entry.
California Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta said his state's tariff lawsuit resembles another legal battle with Trump, resulting in a “core issue of administrative authorities.”
“Our position was clear over and over that this president would not allow him to exercise any authority he does not have,” Bonta said.
Trump says he is moving forward with tariffs to raise billions of dollars in revenue, encourage more domestic manufacturing and force concessions to American trade partners, including falling tariffs on US goods. Without the Economic Emergency Act, the President may have been forced to use slower, narrower paths to tariffs, as he did with sector-specific taxes, including those in the automotive industry.
Greta Peish, a former trade officer who is a partner at the law firm Wiley Lane, said that challenging them would be a “difficult battle” as these tariffs are more “established practices” that arise from federal investigations of those industries.
When enacting the Economic Emergency Act in 1977, Congress sought to cut the president's powers after past commanders ran out of emergency declarations. President Richard M. Nixon had tapped the Precursor Trade Act to impose a 10% obligation on imports that the president won, but which also caused a court challenge.
Decades later, Trump's lawyers have never said that he can't explicitly say that he can cite his legislative history and argue that tariffs can be imposed in response to economic emergencies. That position placed a government in conflict with constitutional scholars who viewed that administrative agencies could not claim authority that was not expressly recognized.
“The president has no authority other than the authority entrusted to him by Congress to issue tariffs,” said Jeffrey Schwab, a senior adviser at the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit with past ties to Illinois industrialist and Republican mega-donor Richard Uraine.
This month, the group sued the Trump administration on behalf of small businesses that have said recent tariffs have hurt them. This includes Victor Schwartz, founder of VOS Selection, a New York City company that imports specialized wines, spirits and liquors.
At this point, Schwartz said his company is largely unharmed and has ensured the latest shipments before the highest tariffs take effect. But soon, he predicted that he might need to delay orders, cancel them, or make other cuts.
“A billionaire sitting without doing anything,” Schwartz added about his choice to take part in the legal battle.
