Tariff Lawsuits Challenge Administration Actions, DHS General Counsel Criticizes Judge

Why it matters locally: The legal challenges to the administration's tariffs could impact Texas's key industries, which heavily rely on international trade and supply chains, potentially affecting import costs and export competitiveness. Separately, the ruling on mail voting directives could influence election administration discussions within the state.

---

NEW YORK — A group of small businesses filed a lawsuit Friday challenging the Trump administration’s recent tariffs on 60 U.S. trade partners. The legal action, initiated by the Liberty Justice Center, was filed in the Court of International Trade in New York. The plaintiffs seek to prevent the government from enforcing or collecting duties imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. According to NBC News, the complaint alleges that the U.S. Trade Representative imposed tariffs across 60 economies without providing a detailed, record-based explanation for how the tariffs would address the identified trade practices. In a separate action, Learning Resources, a toy manufacturer based in Vernon Hills, Illinois, also filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in the Court of International Trade. The Chicago Tribune reported that this lawsuit claims the administration has attempted to establish a similar global tariff system under three different statutes. Learning Resources stated it has received approximately $10 million of the $12 million in tariff refunds it expected following a previous Supreme Court ruling. Separately, James Percival, the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, posted on social media Friday, criticizing a U.S. District Judge. The post addressed Judge Patti Saris's Thursday decision to temporarily block the Trump administration’s effort to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudan. Fox News reported that Judge Saris granted an administrative stay in *African Communities Together v. Mullin*, which preserves TPS protections for South Sudanese nationals. Saris stated that the order is a procedural step to maintain the current status while the court reviews the plaintiffs’ filings and does not represent a ruling on the merits of the case. In other judicial news, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld a lower-court ruling blocking elements of an executive order from President Trump concerning mail voting. The New York Times reported that the order directed the Department of Homeland Security to create state-by-state lists of citizens for voter eligibility and called on the Postal Service to verify voters using state-provided lists. The 1st Circuit stated that the order directs federal officials to unprecedented levels of involvement in state election administration and risks preventing eligible voters from casting ballots. Government lawyers have indicated they may challenge this ruling at the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, during the 2025-26 Supreme Court term, justices recused a combined 64 times when considering new cases, according to The Hill. Justice Samuel Alito accounted for 23 of these recusals. The Hill noted Alito’s direct stock holdings in 27 companies as the primary reason for his recusals, contrasting with other justices who primarily hold diversified investments. Discussions regarding the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, also referred to as the interim or shadow docket, took place during House and Senate subcommittee hearings for the court’s fiscal year 2027 budget request. Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett addressed questions about the increase in such orders. Justice Barrett noted that the court must decide every application it receives, making the docket size dependent on applicants. Justice Kagan suggested that granting high-profile requests may lead to more applications. Kagan also observed that she no longer considers the term "shadow docket" appropriate, at least for now, stating that the court’s explanations for orders have improved. However, she acknowledged that justices themselves use various terms for this docket, calling it a “terminology nightmare.”