A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan heard arguments Wednesday regarding a legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s latest round of near-global tariffs. The lawsuit, brought by a coalition of small businesses and states led by Democrats, alleges that the administration has exceeded its statutory authority under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
This marks the third attempt by the courts to intervene in the president’s expansive tariff agenda in under two years. The conflict began after the Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs in February. Those duties, announced in April 2025, had been struck down shortly after implementation, compelling the government to refund more than $100 billion in collected revenues.
Following that ruling, the administration briefly imposed a universal 10% tariff under Section 122 of the same trade law. Because Section 122 imposes a 150-day limit, the duties expired in July. Although a federal trade court had ruled against the Section 122 measures, an appeals court paused that decision, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect until their scheduled expiration.
Immediately upon the lapse of the Section 122 duties, the Trump administration invoked Section 301 to impose new rates of either 10% or 12.5% on imports from 86 countries. According to the administration, these duties cover 99.4% of U.S. imports and are intended to penalize nations that fail to enforce prohibitions on goods produced through forced labor.
In court filings from August, plaintiffs argued that the current duties are a transparent effort to resurrect the global tariff regime that the Supreme Court had already rejected. “In short, Defendants have now tried to re-create materially the same global tariff regime under three disparate statutes,” the filing stated. “But there is a reason they did not begin with Section 301 and are instead turning to it now only as a last resort.”
Attorneys for the Department of Justice defended the policy, asserting that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative acted within the boundaries of the law. They maintained that the measures align with the text and purpose of Section 301 and reflect the president’s commitment to establishing fair market conditions for American workers and producers by conditioning market access on the cessation of international forced labor.
Three different statutes, three different losses. It’s like watching a court case unfold in slow motion with high stakes and no closure.
Forced labor enforcement sounds noble on paper, but does this blanket tariff actually target violators or just punish everyday consumers?
Small businesses are the real victims here. Trying to plan inventory while the legal ground shifts every few months is impossible.
Forty billion in refunds isn’t enough? The taxpayer still foots the bill for these executive whiplash maneuvers.
This legal ping-pong is exhausting. If they just struck down the reciprocal tariffs, why recycle the same policy under a different statute?