25 U.S. States Oppose Trump’s 'Section 301 Forced Labor Tariff'

Lawsuit Filed to Nullify Tariffs
Allegations of Presidential Overreach

In New York, California, and 23 other Democratic-leaning states, state governments have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the 'forced labor tariff' newly imposed on various countries by the Trump Administration last month, claiming the tariff is unlawful.

On April 2 last year (local time), U.S. President Donald Trump declared a "Day of Liberation" and announced tariffs targeting countries worldwide. Photo by AP Yonhap News

According to the U.S. Court of International Trade on August 3 (local time), these 25 states argued in their complaint that the tariff measures imposed on major trading partners by the Trump Administration, based on Section 301 of the Trade Act, exceeded the President’s authority to levy tariffs and were therefore illegal. Previously, spice importer Burlap & Barrel and watch retailer Collective Horology, among other small businesses, filed a similar lawsuit on July 24.

The plaintiffs insisted in their complaint that President Trump and federal officials unlawfully used Section 301 of the Trade Act to replace the reciprocal tariffs invalidated by the Supreme Court’s decision. They also pointed out contradictions in the Trump Administration’s rationale. For example, while the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) cited Brazilian frozen beef as a forced labor-related case, the item was ultimately excluded from the list of tariffed products.

Kathy Hochul, Governor of New York, criticized the forced labor tariffs, calling them “a tax on hardworking American families” and warning that they would drive up the prices of food, daily necessities, and building materials. New York Attorney General Letitia James also stated, “No matter how the Trump Administration tries to justify this, the law and our Constitution make it clear that the President does not have the authority to impose comprehensive tariffs.” Dan Rayfield, Attorney General of Oregon, commented, “Despite losing at every stage, Trump is once again trying to sow greater confusion among workers and businesses.”

Previously, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February that reciprocal tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were illegal, the Trump Administration imposed a temporary 10% global tariff on all countries by invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act. When this measure expired on July 24, the USTR cited concerns over the import of products made with forced labor and applied Section 301 to introduce new tariffs of 10 to 12.5% on major trading partners. South Korea also faced a de facto 12.5% tariff on the grounds that its efforts to block the import of products made with forced labor were deemed insufficient.

However, legal experts suggest that the plaintiffs may face a harder battle in this case than with the prior IEEPA litigation. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), citing trade lawyers, noted that Section 301 of the Trade Act has been widely used before, and that courts have historically recognized broad presidential authority to levy tariffs under this provision, which could hinder the plaintiffs’ case.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, “The practices of foreign governments that allow the importation of goods made with forced labor burden American commerce and workers, and must be corrected. The Section 301 tariffs have been a legally robust tool since the first Trump Administration, and that remains true today.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.