Trump’s Section 301 Forced-Labor Tariffs Face Court Challenge

On September 30, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan heard oral arguments over President Donald Trump’s latest round of tariffs. The administration has imposed duties of 10 % to 12.5 % on imports from 60 to 86 countries, covering roughly 99.4 % of U.S. imports. Plaintiffs – a coalition of small businesses and 25 Democratic-led states – argue the tariffs exceed the authority granted by Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Reuters

The Supreme Court’s February 20 decision struck down Trump’s earlier “Liberation Day” tariffs that relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After that ruling, the administration turned to Section 301, first using a temporary 10 % global tariff and then, in July, imposing the current forced-labor duties. The Justice Department says the tariffs target countries that have not adequately prevented forced-labor goods from entering the United States; critics say the policy revives a broad tariff regime that courts have rejected.

CNN

• Tariff rates: 10 % to 12.5 %

CNN

• Countries affected: reports cite 60 to 86 trading partners, including the EU, China, India, Japan, and others.

DW News

• Import coverage: 99.4 % of U.S. imports.

Reuters

• Plaintiffs: four small-business owners and 25 states led by Democratic governors.

The Hill

• Legal history: third major tariff case heard in less than two years.

CNN

Eric Hamilton, representing the Department of Justice, said the tariffs were necessary to address forced-labor concerns. The administration also argued the timing was intended “to avoid complexity” from layering them on top of the earlier 10 % duties.

CNBC

Former Treasury trade lawyer Alan Wm. Wolff, who helped draft Section 301, argued that Congress never intended the statute to authorize a “broad tariff authority” covering dozens of countries at once.

Foreign Policy

Sources differ on the exact number of countries subject to the tariffs—60 (Reuters, The Hill) versus 86 (NY Times, CNBC)—and on the percentage of U.S. imports affected (99.4 % versus “nearly every” import). The administration claims a country-by-country analysis; plaintiffs contend the investigation lacked statutory detail for each nation. No court has yet ruled on whether the forced-labor justification meets Section 301 evidentiary standards.

Reuters

• “If you're going to do it at breakneck speed and try to cover the entire globe, you still have to satisfy the statutory requirements,” — Pratik Shah, attorney for the small-business plaintiffs

Reuters

• “If it looks like an IEEPA tariff and it smells like an IEEPA tariff, it maybe is an IEEPA tariff,” — Sara Albrecht, CEO of the Liberty Justice Center

The Hill

The panel indicated it will issue a written opinion “in the coming weeks.” If the judges find the tariffs unlawful, they may order the administration to redo its investigations or strike the duties. The outcome could be appealed to the Federal Circuit, with possible Supreme Court review. The litigation arrives as the G20 trade ministers convene in Milwaukee, where analysts expect the tariffs to dominate discussions on multilateral trade relations.

CNN