US juice importer challenges Trump’s tariff against Brazil in court

In a new climb of commercial tension between the United States and Brazil, American importer Johanna Foods and her subsidiary, Johanna Beverage Company, filed an emergency request against the 50% rate imposed by former President Donald Trump on Brazilian orange juice. The measure, scheduled to take effect on August 1, is considered a “existential” threat to the company’s business, according to lawyers.

Companies ask the American court an order of temporary restriction, an injunction and a permanent precautionary measure to prevent the fare from being applied. The judicial process maintains that the imposition of the rate violates the US commercial legislation, does not fit the legal provisions of Section 301 or the International Emergency Economic Powers Law (IEEPA).

“Existential threat” and prices on the high

In an extensive 160 -page document, Johanna Foods argues that the new tariff would cause additional $ 68 million costs in just 12 months, exceeding all the company’s annual profits in three decades. The direct impact on consumers would be a 20% to 25% increase in the price of orange juice in American supermarkets.

The company, one of the largest suppliers of juices for networks such as Walmart, Aldi, Sam’s Club and Wegmans, says there is no viable alternative to the Brazilian raw material. National orange production in the US, especially in Florida, suffers from orchards, hurricanes and growing urbanization. “There is not enough supply, not even with the same quality,” says the petition.

Informal card, Tarifa Formal?

The core of the legal argument is the legality of the presidential act. Johanna Foods disputes the validity of a letter sent by Donald Trump to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on July 9, in which the former president says that the taxation is due to the “treatment given to Bolsonaro” and the “unfair relationship” between countries. For the company, the letter does not constitute a formal executive order, nor declares a “national emergency” that justified the invocation of IEEPA.

“The letter mentions old events and does not have an emerging economic threat,” the document says. Without legal basis, the lawyers say, the rate would be unconstitutional and arbitrary, violating the balance of powers between executive and congress in the US.

Brazil uses the WTO and articulates global reaction

On the Brazilian side, the reaction also intensified in the diplomatic plane. In Geneva, ambassador Philip Fox-Drummond Gough criticized Trump’s tariffs as “unilateral arbitrary measures” and an illegitimate instrument of international coercion. The demonstration took place during a Session of the General Council of the WTO, in which Brazil inserted the theme “Respect for the Multilateral Rule -Based Trade System” on the agenda.

“If negotiations failed, we will use all available legal means to defend our economy and our people – and this includes the WTO controversy system,” said Gough.

The Brazilian diplomat also proposed an alliance between developing countries to react to the proliferation of unilateral tariffs by large powers.

Direct impact on American breakfast

Brazil is responsible for more than 50% of all orange juice consumed in the US and 75% of global exports of the product. Depending on the court decision, the rate may have dramatic effects on the United States juice production chain for both importers and end consumers.

“The measure threatens a basic product of American breakfast,” the company warns in the process.

The fare can also affect 685 direct jobs maintained by Johanna Foods in New Jersey and Washington. As an importer and co-manufacturer of its own brands for large retailers, the company claims to be a “national orange juice supply pillar”.

Fare as a political weapon: Trump’s trademark

The case adds to other lawsuits against Trump’s trade policy, marked by the frequent use of tariffs as a diplomatic pressure tool. The former president has already threatened or imposed rates on countries such as China, Mexico, Canada and Colombia for reasons ranging from trade to immigration.

In the Brazilian case, however, the motivation explained in the letter-the “unfair treatment” given to Bolsonaro, Trump’s ideological ally-raises the most serious question: would the former president be using tariff policy as an instrument of international ideological retaliation?

What to expect?

The US International Commerce Court must be judged this month the requests for injunction and precautionary measure. At the same time, the Brazilian government monitors the situation and prepares a possible formal dispute in the WTO if the tariffs are maintained.

Regardless of the legal outcome, the episode exposes the risks of commercial instability caused by unilateral decisions and reinforces the need for strong and functional multilateral mechanisms – a flag that Brazil has raised with emphasis on international forums.