Trump’s latest tariff program is facing a new lawsuit, raising legal questions similar to those that undermined his earlier “liberation day” duties. Courts struck down the previous measures after finding that the White House relied on a law that did not authorize the president to impose import taxes on goods from most countries.

Trump has now introduced another broad tariff framework. The new legal challenge argues that the administration is attempting to preserve the same policy by shifting to a different statute.

The duties took effect on Friday and apply to products from more than 80 countries. Those trading partners represent 99.4% of U.S. trade, making the dispute significant for importers that must comply with the new rates while the case proceeds. The White House says the tariffs are aimed at governments that have not done enough to prevent goods connected to forced labor from entering supply chains.

The administration is relying on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows Washington to respond to unfair trade practices through tariffs.

Trade lawyers say Trump is using Section 301 beyond its traditional scope

Section 301 has been invoked by multiple presidents, including Trump during his first term, when the United States imposed tariffs on China. Peter Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute of International Economic Law, said the current use of the statute is unusually broad. He told CNBC, owned by Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA), that Trump is “using the statute in a fundamentally different way.”

Harrell said Congress did not design Section 301 to allow a president to rewrite the U.S. tariff schedule or to keep sweeping duties in place indefinitely. He said courts could “for sure” invalidate the policy.

Trump is also relying on Section 301 in other trade disputes. On Friday, he said the United States would immediately investigate the European Union after regulators imposed penalties on American technology companies. The administration has also imposed a 25% tariff on Brazilian imports and threatened a 50% rate on Canadian products.

Two small companies filed the first lawsuit within hours of the duties taking effect. Their complaint was submitted to the U.S. Court of International Trade, the specialized federal court that hears cases involving customs and trade law. The companies argue that the forced labor justification is legal cover for reconstructing the global tariff system that judges rejected five months earlier.

The timing is a key part of the complaint. The Section 301 duties began as another set of tariffs expired. Trump announced those earlier charges under Section 122 of the 1974 law hours after the Supreme Court rejected his global tariff policy on February 20. Section 122 permits temporary import charges, meaning those duties carried a fixed expiration date.

The Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not allow Trump to unilaterally impose tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners. According to the current complaint, the White House cannot avoid that ruling by choosing a different statute while preserving essentially the same structure.

The filing says Section 301 does not authorize the president to tax nearly all imports at rates selected to mirror the failed IEEPA system. It argues that any duties under the statute must be connected to specific foreign conduct and designed to end that conduct.

Two companies ask court to block Trump’s replacement tariff framework

The administration denies that it is reviving the earlier program. A senior official told reporters Thursday that forced labor has been a concern for Trump “for many years.” The official said the Friday start date was selected “really to avoid complexity.”

The lawsuit by the two companies was brought by the Liberty Justice Center. The same NGO represented the challengers who prevailed in the earlier IEEPA case. The group argues that the White House cannot preserve a predetermined tariff strategy by changing the legal authority it cites.

Sara Albrecht, the group’s chairman and chief executive, said forced labor is “morally indefensible,” but that an important policy goal does not permit the government to disregard legal limits. Albrecht said one tariff package expired and another immediately began under a different law. “Changing the statute doesn’t change the law,” she said.

Patrick Childress, a Holland & Knight partner and former U.S. trade official, said the Section 301 duties could remain in place much longer than the expired Section 122 charges. “These tariffs will be with us for the long haul,” Childress said.

Countries may not receive relief even if they adopt every rule requested by Washington. Childress said each government must demonstrate to U.S. officials that it is enforcing those rules before Trump’s tariffs are removed. He said there is no short-term path for a country to avoid the new rates.

The case will test whether the administration’s forced-labor rationale is enough to support a tariff system covering nearly all U.S. trade under Section 301, or whether courts view the new framework as another version of the policy they already rejected.