Are Trump's Section 301 "forced labor" tariffs a lawful remedy, or a pretext to revive struck-down global tariffs?

Timeline

16 timeline entries on this page. Dates: February 20, 2026 to September 30, 2026

1. February 2026

   3 events

   1. 20FriFebruary 20, 2026

      Supreme Court holds that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs

      Source release

      In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, argued November 5, 2025 and decided February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts announced the judgment and wrote the opinion of the Court in part; Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson joined all or part of it, and Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh dissented. In dissent, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the decision "might not substantially constrain a President's ability to order tariffs going forward" because other statutes authorize tariffs, and he named Section 301 among them. A passage in Part II-A-2 of the Chief Justice's opinion, which only Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined, lists Section 301 among the tariff statutes subject to "demanding procedural prerequisites." The opinion does not address refunds of tariffs already paid.

      [01]Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 24-1287 and 25-250), slip opinion

      Source excerpt

      Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.

      The Court's February 20, 2026 decision, argued November 5, 2025. Chief Justice Roberts announced the judgment and wrote the opinion, joined in full by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson for Parts I, II-A-1 and II-B; Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh dissented. The decision concerns IEEPA only. A passage in Part II-A-2, which only Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined, lists Section 301 among tariff statutes that carry procedural conditions, and both sides in the Section 301 litigation cite it.

      Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 24-1287 and 25-250), slip opinion · Supreme Court of the United StatesSyllabus (Held); Part II-A-2, pages 8-9 (plurality) on the "demanding procedural prerequisites" of tariff statutes; Kavanaugh, J., dissenting, pages 5-6 (quoted passage) and 62-63 (appendix on Section 301)
   2. 20FriFebruary 20, 2026

      Trump announces a 10% Section 122 surcharge and new Section 301 investigations; USTR says it will act "to ensure continuity"

      Source release

      At a news conference on the day of the ruling, Trump said he would sign an order imposing a 10-percent global tariff under Section 122 "and we're also initiating several section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies," and that "other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the Court incorrectly rejected." Proclamation 11012 imposed a 10% surcharge for 150 days, effective February 24. USTR's statement said alternative tools would be implemented and that the administration would take steps "to ensure continuity" including investigations under Section 301 on an accelerated timeframe "in keeping with the Section 301 statute's substantive and procedural requirements." It listed forced labor among the areas of concern the investigations would address. The plaintiffs in the Section 301 case cite this statement as evidence of pretext, and the government says the stated rationale for the forced-labor action is documented in USTR's own record.

      [02]Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payments Problems (Proclamation 11012, February 20, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      Accordingly, I impose, for a period of 150 days, a temporary import surcharge of 10 percent ad valorem, as described below, on articles imported into the United States, effective February 24, 2026.

      The proclamation imposing a 10% import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 on the day of the Supreme Court decision. Section 122 limits such a surcharge to 150 days unless Congress extends it.

      Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payments Problems (Proclamation 11012, February 20, 2026) · The White HouseOperative paragraph imposing the surcharge for 150 days effective February 24, 2026

      [03]The President's News Conference, February 20, 2026 (transcript, American Presidency Project)

      Source excerpt

      Today I will sign an order to impose a 10-percent global tariff under section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged, and we're also initiating several section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.

      Transcript of Trump's news conference on the day of the Supreme Court ruling, where he announced the Section 122 surcharge and Section 301 investigations. A Roll Call Factba.se transcript carries the same remarks.

      The President's News Conference, February 20, 2026 (transcript, American Presidency Project)Opening remarks after the Supreme Court decision

      [04]Ambassador Greer Issues Statement on Supreme Court IEEPA Decision (USTR, February 20, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      Initiate several investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 ("Section 301") to deal with unjustifiable, unreasonable, discriminatory, and burdensome acts, policies, and practices by many trading partners.

      USTR's statement on the day of the Supreme Court ruling. It says alternative tools would be implemented, lists a 10% Section 122 surcharge and new Section 301 investigations as steps taken "to ensure continuity," and names forced labor among the areas of concern the investigations would address. Both sides cite it.

      Ambassador Greer Issues Statement on Supreme Court IEEPA Decision (USTR, February 20, 2026) · Office of the United States Trade RepresentativeParagraphs beginning "For many months" and "The Trump Administration will take the following actions"
   3. 22SunFebruary 22, 2026

      Greer and Bessent describe the Section 122 surcharge as a bridge to Section 301 and 232 tariffs

      Claim

      Two days after the ruling, Greer told ABC's This Week that "the policy hasn't changed" and "we're aiming for continuity," and that Section 301 investigations would follow the Section 122 surcharge. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN's State of the Union that during the surcharge period "it is very likely that those studies will result in higher 232s, higher 301s, and it will get us back to the same tariff level." The states' complaint cites other statements from the same days, including USTR's February 20 release and Bessent's February 20 remarks in Dallas. The government's September 4 brief says the Section 301 actions are "consistent with the Trump Administration's trade policies and priorities" and that officials' public statements saying so "do not vitiate the contemporaneously documented rationale" for USTR's actions.

      [05]This Week transcript, February 22, 2026: U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer (ABC News)

      Source excerpt

      And so, the policy hasn't changed. The legal tool to implement it, that might change, but the policy hasn't changed. And so, we're aiming for continuity.

      Greer's Sunday interview two days after the ruling. He says the policy has not changed and that Section 301 investigations will follow the Section 122 surcharge. The Section 301 plaintiffs quote it to argue the investigations were planned to continue the earlier tariffs.

      This Week transcript, February 22, 2026: U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer (ABC News)Greer's answers on what replaces the Supreme Court-invalidated tariffs

      [06]State of the Union transcript, February 22, 2026: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (CNN)

      Source excerpt

      So, during that time, it is very likely that those studies will result in higher 232s, higher 301s, and it will get us back to the same tariff level.

      Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's Sunday interview two days after the ruling, describing the Section 122 surcharge as a bridge while Section 232 and Section 301 studies proceed. Plaintiffs and the states cite his statements about restoring the earlier tariff level.

      State of the Union transcript, February 22, 2026: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (CNN) · CNNBessent's answer on what the Section 122 period will produce

      [07]In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court No. 26-cv-3555-3JP: Defendant's Response in Opposition to Rule 56.1 Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record (ECF No. 22, September 4, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      The actions that USTR has taken at the direction of the President in this case are consistent with the text, object, and purpose of the Section 301 statute,

      The government's brief in the sample case. It argues that USTR made findings for each of the 60 economies, that its determinations are reasonable and entitled to deference, that the President's specific direction is expressly required by Section 301, that the pretext argument is baseless, that plaintiffs have not shown standing, and that any relief should be limited. It relies on the Federal Circuit's 2025 decision in HMTX Industries v. United States.

      In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court No. 26-cv-3555-3JP: Defendant's Response in Opposition to Rule 56.1 Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record (ECF No. 22, September 4, 2026) · United States Department of JusticeIntroduction, pages 1-3; Summary of Argument, pages 16-19

      [08]State of Oregon et al. v. Trump, Court of International Trade No. 26-03467: complaint (August 3, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      The Plaintiff States oppose forced labor in all its forms and support protections for workers around the globe. But the Administration cannot use forced labor as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme.

      The complaint of 25 plaintiffs (23 states and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania). It alleges the tariff action is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law, that the 60 investigations were completed in a fraction of the time such investigations usually take, and that the administration's own statements show the investigation was planned to continue the earlier tariffs. Under the court's August 19 order the states' case is stayed behind the Learning Resources sample case.

      State of Oregon et al. v. Trump, Court of International Trade No. 26-03467: complaint (August 3, 2026) · Dan RayfieldComplaint, paragraphs 1-10 and 56-78 (ECF No. 2); the California attorney general's copy is cited

2. 18 days between recorded events

   March 2026

   1 event

   1. 12ThuMarch 12, 2026

      USTR opens 60 Section 301 investigations into forced-labor import bans

      Source release

      USTR initiated 60 investigations into whether economies' failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is actionable under Section 301. The notice, published March 17, set public hearings beginning April 28 and a comment deadline of April 15. USTR says it held hearings on April 28 and 29, consulted more than 45 governments and received more than 2,100 public comments in the investigations.

      [09]Initiation of Section 301 Investigations of Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure To Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced With Forced Labor (91 FR 12884)

      Source excerpt

      The U.S. Trade Representative (Trade Representative) is initiating investigations with respect to acts, policies, and practices of the economies listed in Annex A of this notice related to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.

      USTR's notice opening the 60 investigations, with the hearing schedule beginning April 28, 2026 and the comment deadline of April 15. It states that the Trade Representative initiated the investigations on March 12, 2026.

      Initiation of Section 301 Investigations of Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure To Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced With Forced Labor (91 FR 12884) · Office of the United States Trade RepresentativeSummary and Dates; USTR says it initiated the investigations on March 12, 2026

      [10]USTR Takes Action in Forced Labor Section 301 Investigations (press release, July 23, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      Today, Ambassador Jamieson Greer is taking final action, at President Trump's direction, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 by imposing tariffs on 60 economies for their failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.

      USTR's announcement of the final action. It lists the 17 economies at 10% (Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Kingdom), the net-of-most-favored-nation rates for the European Union, Taiwan, Japan, Korea and Switzerland, and 12.5% for every other investigated economy. It gives the investigation timeline and quotes Greer.

      USTR Takes Action in Forced Labor Section 301 Investigations (press release, July 23, 2026) · Office of the United States Trade RepresentativePress release text, quotation attributed to Ambassador Jamieson Greer, and Background section

3. 56 days between recorded events

   May 2026

   1 event

   1. 07ThuMay 7, 2026

      Court of International Trade rules the Section 122 surcharge was not authorized

      Source release

      A divided three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade held in Oregon v. United States and Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. United States that Proclamation 11012 was invalid because the trade and current-account deficits are not balance-of-payments deficits as Section 122 uses the term. Chief Judge Mark Barnett and Judge Claire Kelly formed the majority and Judge Timothy Stanceu dissented. The court gave relief to the State of Washington, Burlap and Barrel and Basic Fun and dismissed the other plaintiff states' claims for lack of standing. The ruling rests on the text of Section 122 and does not address pretext.

      [11]Oregon v. United States and Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 26-47 (Court of International Trade, May 7, 2026): opinion and order on the Section 122 tariffs

      Source excerpt

      Proclamation No. 11012 is invalid, and the tariffs imposed on Plaintiffs are unauthorized by law.

      A divided three-judge panel held that the Section 122 surcharge was not authorized because the trade and current-account deficits are not balance-of-payments deficits as the statute uses the term. Relief went to the State of Washington, Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Basic Fun, Inc.; the claims of the other plaintiff states were dismissed for lack of standing. The decision rests on the text of Section 122, not on any finding about pretext.

      Oregon v. United States and Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 26-47 (Court of International Trade, May 7, 2026): opinion and order on the Section 122 tariffs · U.S. Court of International TradeConclusion and order, page 53; the opinion's holding at page 46; Judge Stanceu's dissent follows

4. 26 days between recorded events

   June 2026

   2 events

   1. 02TueJune 2, 2026

      USTR finds the 60 economies' practices actionable and proposes 10% and 12.5% duties

      Source release

      USTR determined that each economy's failure to impose and effectively enforce a forced-labor import prohibition "is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce," and proposed duties of 10% on economies that have a ban, have committed to one in a trade agreement or have a partial regime, and 12.5% on all others. The determinations were published June 5 with a comment deadline of July 6. USTR found that 54 economies had failed to impose and effectively enforce a ban and that six (Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico and Pakistan) had a prohibition they did not effectively enforce.

      [12]Notice of Determinations and Request for Comments Concerning Actions in Section 301 Investigations of Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure To Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced With Forced Labor (91 FR 34272)

      Source excerpt

      The failure of each of the investigated economies to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition is unreasonable because it: (1) undermines the universal aim of eliminating forced labor;

      USTR's June 2, 2026 determinations and proposed action, published June 5. USTR gives four reasons the failure to impose and effectively enforce a forced-labor import prohibition is unreasonable, says it burdens or restricts U.S. commerce by exposing U.S. producers to unfair competition and displacing goods made without forced labor, and proposes duties of 10% or 12.5%. USTR also responds to comments that raised legal objections to the finding of unreasonableness.

      Notice of Determinations and Request for Comments Concerning Actions in Section 301 Investigations of Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure To Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced With Forced Labor (91 FR 34272) · Office of the United States Trade RepresentativeSection III (determinations on acts, policies, and practices) and section V (responses to significant comments)

      [10]USTR Takes Action in Forced Labor Section 301 Investigations (press release, July 23, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      Today, Ambassador Jamieson Greer is taking final action, at President Trump's direction, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 by imposing tariffs on 60 economies for their failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.

      USTR's announcement of the final action. It lists the 17 economies at 10% (Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Kingdom), the net-of-most-favored-nation rates for the European Union, Taiwan, Japan, Korea and Switzerland, and 12.5% for every other investigated economy. It gives the investigation timeline and quotes Greer.

      USTR Takes Action in Forced Labor Section 301 Investigations (press release, July 23, 2026) · Office of the United States Trade RepresentativePress release text, quotation attributed to Ambassador Jamieson Greer, and Background section
   2. 11ThuJune 11, 2026

      Federal Circuit stays the Section 122 injunction pending the government's appeal

      Source release

      In a nonprecedential order, the Federal Circuit granted the government's motion to stay the Court of International Trade's injunction on the Section 122 surcharge, saying it was persuaded the lower court's reading of "balance-of-payments deficit" may be incorrect while stating it was not offering its own interpretation at this stage. The surcharge stayed in effect until it expired in July. As of September 30, 2026, we did not locate a Federal Circuit merits decision.

      [13]State of Oregon v. Trump, Nos. 2026-1804 and 2026-1805 (Federal Circuit, June 11, 2026): order granting stay pending appeal (copy hosted by Reason)

      Source excerpt

      Without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of these consolidated appeals by a merits panel, we conclude based upon the papers submitted that a stay is warranted under the circumstances.

      The Federal Circuit's nonprecedential order staying the Court of International Trade's injunction on the Section 122 surcharge while the government's appeal proceeds. It says it does not offer its own interpretation of Section 122 at this stage. We did not locate the order on the court's own site, so the cited copy is the one Reason published.

      State of Oregon v. Trump, Nos. 2026-1804 and 2026-1805 (Federal Circuit, June 11, 2026): order granting stay pending appeal (copy hosted by Reason)Order, pages 3-5

5. 41 days between recorded events

   July 2026

   4 events

   1. 22WedJuly 22, 2026

      Greer tells the Senate Finance Committee the authorities have changed but "the trade strategy has not"

      Claim

      In a prepared statement for a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Greer said the national emergency that defined 2025 trade policy "still exists," that "The specific authorities this Administration is using have changed, but the trade strategy has not," and that the administration is continuing to impose tariffs and negotiate deals. On the forced-labor investigations he said USTR's report found the failure to ban forced-labor imports unreasonable and a burden on U.S. commerce, and that the final action was expected as soon as the next day. The states and plaintiffs quote the first passage as evidence the Section 301 tariffs continue the earlier program.

      [14]Greer opening statement, Senate Finance Committee hearing on the President's 2026 trade policy agenda (July 22, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      The specific authorities this Administration is using have changed, but the trade strategy has not.

      Greer's prepared statement for the hearing the Senate Finance Committee held on July 22, 2026. Page 3 describes the forced-labor investigations and the proposed 10% and 12.5% duties. Page 1 says the specific authorities have changed but the trade strategy has not. The statement text is the PDF served at https://www.finance.senate.gov/download/07222026-greer-opening-statement&download=1; the archive copy captures only the download page. The committee's hearing page is https://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/rescheduled-the-presidents-2026-trade-policy-agenda.

      Greer opening statement, Senate Finance Committee hearing on the President's 2026 trade policy agenda (July 22, 2026) · Office of the United States Trade RepresentativeWritten statement, page 1 (national emergency and strategy) and page 3 (the forced-labor investigations)

      [15]Proposed Brief of Plaintiff States as Amici Curiae in Support of the Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record, ECF No. 46-1, September 11, 2026

      Source excerpt

      The stated rationale for the Tariff Action is pretextual.

      The states' amicus brief in the sample case. It collects public statements by administration officials, including USTR's February 20 statement and Bessent's and Greer's remarks, as evidence that the forced-labor rationale is pretextual.

      Proposed Brief of Plaintiff States as Amici Curiae in Support of the Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record, ECF No. 46-1, September 11, 2026 · Dan RayfieldArgument section A, pages 3-10 (administration statements cited as evidence of pretext)
   2. 23ThuJuly 23, 2026

      USTR imposes 10% and 12.5% duties on 60 economies at the President's direction

      After more than 1,600 written comments and public hearings on July 7 to 9 at which USTR says more than 100 witnesses testified, USTR took final action on July 23 under Section 301. It imposed 10% on 17 economies that ban forced-labor imports, have committed to a ban in a trade agreement or have a partial regime, 12.5% on all other investigated economies, and rates net of most-favored-nation duties for the European Union, Taiwan, Japan, Korea and Switzerland, with product exemptions and tariff-rate quotas for some textile imports. USTR says the action covers 99.4% of U.S. imports. The President's memorandum of the same date gave the specific direction on the actions to take.

      [16]Notice of Actions in Section 301 Investigations of Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure of Each Economy To Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced With Forced Labor (91 FR 47318)

      Source excerpt

      In accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative is taking actions in each of these investigations by imposing tariffs on all products of the investigated economy, with certain exemptions as provided in Annexes I and II to this notice

      USTR's notice of final action in the 60 forced-labor investigations. It sets the 10% and 12.5% additional duties effective 12:01 a.m. eastern time on July 24, 2026, lists the product exemptions and tariff-rate quotas, and says each action is taken in accordance with the specific direction of the President. USTR released the notice on July 23, 2026 and the Federal Register published it on July 28.

      Notice of Actions in Section 301 Investigations of Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure of Each Economy To Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced With Forced Labor (91 FR 47318) · Office of the United States Trade RepresentativeSummary and section II (determinations of action in each investigation), with exemptions in Annexes I and II; published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2026 after USTR released it on July 23

      [17]Memorandum of July 23, 2026: Actions by the United States in the Investigations Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 of the Acts, Policies, and Practices of 60 Economies (91 FR 47717)

      Source excerpt

      Each tariff action directed in this memorandum is only for the purpose of obtaining the elimination of the specific economy's act, policy, or practice found actionable under section 301 and not for any other purpose.

      The President's memorandum to the U.S. Trade Representative giving the specific direction on the actions to take in the 60 investigations. The Justice Department quotes its statement of purpose in its brief.

      Memorandum of July 23, 2026: Actions by the United States in the Investigations Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 of the Acts, Policies, and Practices of 60 Economies (91 FR 47717) · Donald TrumpPresidential Documents, 91 FR 47717 (published July 28, 2026); the memorandum is dated July 23, 2026

      [10]USTR Takes Action in Forced Labor Section 301 Investigations (press release, July 23, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      Today, Ambassador Jamieson Greer is taking final action, at President Trump's direction, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 by imposing tariffs on 60 economies for their failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.

      USTR's announcement of the final action. It lists the 17 economies at 10% (Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Kingdom), the net-of-most-favored-nation rates for the European Union, Taiwan, Japan, Korea and Switzerland, and 12.5% for every other investigated economy. It gives the investigation timeline and quotes Greer.

      USTR Takes Action in Forced Labor Section 301 Investigations (press release, July 23, 2026) · Office of the United States Trade RepresentativePress release text, quotation attributed to Ambassador Jamieson Greer, and Background section

      [18]Fact Sheet: USTR Section 301 Action in Response to the Failure of 60 Economies to Ban Imports Produced with Forced Labor (July 23, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      This action applies to the top 60 U.S. trade partners covering 99.4% of U.S. imports.

      USTR's own summary of the action: a 10% or 12.5% tariff on 60 trading partners covering 99.4% of U.S. imports, with the exclusions it lists. It says 10 trading partners have agreed to enact a forced-labor import ban in their Agreements on Reciprocal Trade.

      Fact Sheet: USTR Section 301 Action in Response to the Failure of 60 Economies to Ban Imports Produced with Forced Labor (July 23, 2026) · Office of the United States Trade RepresentativeFact sheet text, opening paragraphs and the section on exclusions
   3. 24FriJuly 24, 2026

      Section 301 duties take effect as the Section 122 surcharge ends; businesses sue

      The Section 301 duties applied from 12:01 a.m. eastern time on July 24, 2026, the moment the 150-day Section 122 surcharge ended. The same day Burlap & Barrel and Collective Horology sued through the Liberty Justice Center, and Learning Resources, Inc. and six other companies sued through Akin Gump. Both complaints argue that USTR did not make the economy-by-economy findings Section 301 requires, and the Liberty Justice Center's complaint alleges the forced-labor rationale "is simply a pretext for tariffs."

      [16]Notice of Actions in Section 301 Investigations of Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure of Each Economy To Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced With Forced Labor (91 FR 47318)

      Source excerpt

      In accordance with the specific direction of the President, the Trade Representative is taking actions in each of these investigations by imposing tariffs on all products of the investigated economy, with certain exemptions as provided in Annexes I and II to this notice

      USTR's notice of final action in the 60 forced-labor investigations. It sets the 10% and 12.5% additional duties effective 12:01 a.m. eastern time on July 24, 2026, lists the product exemptions and tariff-rate quotas, and says each action is taken in accordance with the specific direction of the President. USTR released the notice on July 23, 2026 and the Federal Register published it on July 28.

      Notice of Actions in Section 301 Investigations of Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure of Each Economy To Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced With Forced Labor (91 FR 47318) · Office of the United States Trade RepresentativeSummary and section II (determinations of action in each investigation), with exemptions in Annexes I and II; published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2026 after USTR released it on July 23

      [02]Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payments Problems (Proclamation 11012, February 20, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      Accordingly, I impose, for a period of 150 days, a temporary import surcharge of 10 percent ad valorem, as described below, on articles imported into the United States, effective February 24, 2026.

      The proclamation imposing a 10% import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 on the day of the Supreme Court decision. Section 122 limits such a surcharge to 150 days unless Congress extends it.

      Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payments Problems (Proclamation 11012, February 20, 2026) · The White HouseOperative paragraph imposing the surcharge for 150 days effective February 24, 2026

      [19]Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Collective Horology LLC v. Greer, Court of International Trade No. 26-03345: complaint (July 24, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      But the purported rationale of addressing forced labor is simply a pretext for tariffs.

      The first complaint against the Section 301 tariffs, filed the day they took effect by two small businesses represented by the Liberty Justice Center. It alleges that USTR did not make economy-by-economy findings, that the action was arbitrary and capricious, and that the forced-labor rationale is a pretext. The Liberty Justice Center's copy is cited.

      Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Collective Horology LLC v. Greer, Court of International Trade No. 26-03345: complaint (July 24, 2026) · Liberty Justice CenterComplaint, paragraph 48, page 16 (ECF No. 2)

      [20]Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. United States, Court of International Trade No. 1:26-cv-03347: complaint (July 24, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      This action challenges the Administration's third attempt—under a third proffered statutory authority, after the first two attempts were held invalid—to impose essentially the same set of sweeping global tariffs on virtually all imports into the United States.

      The complaint of Learning Resources, Inc., hand2mind, Inc., HMTX Industries LLC, Halstead New England Corporation, Metroflor Corporation, Shannon Specialty Floors LLC and shopHMTX LLC, filed the day the Section 301 duties took effect. The court later named this case the sample case. Learning Resources was also a petitioner in the Supreme Court's IEEPA case.

      Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. United States, Court of International Trade No. 1:26-cv-03347: complaint (July 24, 2026)Complaint, paragraphs 1-4, pages 1-2 (ECF No. 4); the copy Reason published is cited

      [21]Liberty Justice Center Challenges Unlawful Section 301 Tariffs as Administration Replaces Expiring Section 122 Tariffs (press release, July 24, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      Forced labor is morally indefensible, but an important objective does not give the government permission to ignore the law," said Sara Albrecht, Chairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center.

      The Liberty Justice Center's announcement of the Burlap and Barrel and Collective Horology complaint, with statements from Sara Albrecht, litigation director Jeffrey Schwab and the two companies' founders. It says the case does not dispute that governments should combat forced labor and asks the court to declare the tariffs unlawful and preserve refunds.

      Liberty Justice Center Challenges Unlawful Section 301 Tariffs as Administration Replaces Expiring Section 122 Tariffs (press release, July 24, 2026) · Liberty Justice CenterParagraph quoting Sara Albrecht, Chairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center
   4. 28TueJuly 28, 2026

      Trump says on Fox & Friends he has "other ways of doing the same thing"

      Claim

      Asked on Fox & Friends whether the tariffs he put forward over the previous days would hurt the economy, Trump said it is "a shame that I have to go a harder way for the tariffs" because the Supreme Court ruled against him, and that he has "other ways of doing the same thing." CNBC reported the remark under a headline saying the new tariffs are the same as those the Supreme Court struck down. Sara Albrecht of the Liberty Justice Center said it bolsters the challengers' argument. Trump did not name Section 301 or forced labor.

      [22]Trump says tariffs have made the US 'a fortune' (Fox & Friends clip, July 28, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      it's a shame that I have to go a harder way for the tariffs because the Supreme Court in a very close decision, you know, ruled against me. Now I have other ways of doing the same thing, but it's a more cumbersome, you know, way of doing it.

      Fox News's clip of President Trump on Fox & Friends on Tuesday, July 28, 2026. The host asks whether the tariffs announced over the previous days will hurt the economy. We transcribed the audio ourselves; CNBC's quotation of the same lines differs from our transcription only in commas.

      Trump says tariffs have made the US 'a fortune' (Fox & Friends clip, July 28, 2026) · Fox News2:21 clip; the passage quoted runs from about 0:54 to 1:12 (our transcription of the audio)

      [23]Trump: New tariffs 'doing the same thing' as the ones struck down by Supreme Court (CNBC, July 28, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      "This statement bolsters our argument," Albrecht told CNBC in an emailed statement.

      CNBC's report on the remark. Its headline and key points describe the tariffs as "doing the same thing" as those the Supreme Court struck down. Trump's own words, quoted in the article and in the Fox clip, are "other ways of doing the same thing."

      Trump: New tariffs 'doing the same thing' as the ones struck down by Supreme Court (CNBC, July 28, 2026) · CNBCReport on Trump's Fox & Friends interview; includes a statement from Sara Albrecht of the Liberty Justice Center

6. August 2026

   2 events

   1. 03MonAugust 3, 2026

      Twenty-five plaintiffs sue; the White House says the United States is using its lawful authority

      Twenty-five plaintiffs, 23 states and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, filed State of Oregon et al. v. Trump in the Court of International Trade, led by the attorneys general of Oregon, Arizona and California. The complaint alleges the tariff action is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law and that the administration "cannot use forced labor as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme." White House spokesman Kush Desai said the United States "is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce."

      [08]State of Oregon et al. v. Trump, Court of International Trade No. 26-03467: complaint (August 3, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      The Plaintiff States oppose forced labor in all its forms and support protections for workers around the globe. But the Administration cannot use forced labor as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme.

      The complaint of 25 plaintiffs (23 states and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania). It alleges the tariff action is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law, that the 60 investigations were completed in a fraction of the time such investigations usually take, and that the administration's own statements show the investigation was planned to continue the earlier tariffs. Under the court's August 19 order the states' case is stayed behind the Learning Resources sample case.

      State of Oregon et al. v. Trump, Court of International Trade No. 26-03467: complaint (August 3, 2026) · Dan RayfieldComplaint, paragraphs 1-10 and 56-78 (ECF No. 2); the California attorney general's copy is cited

      [24]25 states sue over Trump's new tariffs, calling them 'pretext' to replace his old ones (Associated Press, August 3, 2026; Anchorage Daily News copy)

      Source excerpt

      The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce," White House spokesman Kush Desai said.

      The Associated Press's report on the states' lawsuit, with the White House's response from spokesman Kush Desai. CBS News and other outlets carried the same Desai statement.

      25 states sue over Trump's new tariffs, calling them 'pretext' to replace his old ones (Associated Press, August 3, 2026; Anchorage Daily News copy) · Associated PressParagraph quoting White House spokesman Kush Desai

      [25]25 states sue Trump administration over latest round of tariffs (CBS News, August 3, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies and practices that burden U.S. commerce," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement to CBS News.

      CBS News's report on the states' lawsuit, with the White House's statement given to CBS. The wording differs from the Associated Press's copy of the same statement only by a comma.

      25 states sue Trump administration over latest round of tariffs (CBS News, August 3, 2026) · CBS NewsParagraph quoting White House spokesman Kush Desai in a statement to CBS News
   2. 19WedAugust 19, 2026

      Court names Learning Resources the sample case; plaintiffs move for judgment on August 24

      Source release

      On August 19 the three-judge panel of Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, Timothy Reif and Lisa Wang named Learning Resources, Inc. v. United States the sample case, stayed the other Section 301 forced-labor cases and appointed a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee of lawyers from Akin Gump, the Liberty Justice Center and the Oregon, Arizona and California attorney general offices. On August 24 the Learning Resources plaintiffs moved for judgment on the agency record, arguing that Section 301 requires country-by-country findings, that the action is arbitrary and capricious and that it is pretextual.

      [26]In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court No. 26-cv-3555-3JP: Standard Procedural Order No. 26-02 (ECF No. 15, August 19, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      shall serve as the sample case for purposes of the Court's initial consideration and resolution of the plaintiffs' claims

      The three-judge panel's order naming Learning Resources, Inc. v. United States (No. 1:26-cv-03347) the sample case, staying all other Section 301 forced-labor cases, and appointing a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee of counsel from Akin Gump, the Liberty Justice Center and the Oregon, Arizona and California attorney general offices.

      In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court No. 26-cv-3555-3JP: Standard Procedural Order No. 26-02 (ECF No. 15, August 19, 2026) · U.S. Court of International TradeOrder, pages 1-2

      [27]In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court No. 26-cv-3555-3JP: Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record (ECF No. 16, August 24, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      In short, Defendants have now tried to re-create materially the same global tariff regime under three disparate statutes.

      The merits motion in the court's sample case, filed for Learning Resources, Inc., hand2mind, Inc., HMTX Industries LLC, Halstead New England Corporation, Metroflor Corporation, Shannon Specialty Floors LLC and shopHMTX LLC. It argues that Section 301 requires country-by-country findings, that USTR's findings are arbitrary and capricious, and that the action is pretextual. It says the plaintiffs do not condone reliance on forced labor.

      In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court No. 26-cv-3555-3JP: Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record (ECF No. 16, August 24, 2026)Introduction, pages 1-3 (PDF pages 14-16)

7. 16 days between recorded events

   September 2026

   3 events

   1. 04FriSeptember 4, 2026

      Justice Department files its response defending the tariffs

      Source release

      The Justice Department, with USTR's general counsel's office, filed its response. It argues that USTR made findings for each of the 60 economies, that its determinations are discretionary and reasonable, that the President's specific direction is required by Section 301, that the pretext argument is baseless, that the plaintiffs have not shown standing and that any relief should be narrow. The plaintiffs replied on September 18.

      [07]In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court No. 26-cv-3555-3JP: Defendant's Response in Opposition to Rule 56.1 Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record (ECF No. 22, September 4, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      The actions that USTR has taken at the direction of the President in this case are consistent with the text, object, and purpose of the Section 301 statute,

      The government's brief in the sample case. It argues that USTR made findings for each of the 60 economies, that its determinations are reasonable and entitled to deference, that the President's specific direction is expressly required by Section 301, that the pretext argument is baseless, that plaintiffs have not shown standing, and that any relief should be limited. It relies on the Federal Circuit's 2025 decision in HMTX Industries v. United States.

      In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court No. 26-cv-3555-3JP: Defendant's Response in Opposition to Rule 56.1 Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record (ECF No. 22, September 4, 2026) · United States Department of JusticeIntroduction, pages 1-3; Summary of Argument, pages 16-19
   2. 11FriSeptember 11, 2026

      Ten amicus briefs are filed, all supporting the plaintiffs

      Source release

      Between September 10 and 11, ten sets of amici moved to file briefs supporting the plaintiffs: former trade officials Carla Hills, Alan Wm. Wolff and Warren Maruyama; Barry Appleton; the Goldwater Institute; the Progressive Policy Institute and Ed Gresser; Timothy Meyer and Gregory Shaffer; Consumer Watchdog; the Cato Institute, Michael McConnell and Ilya Somin; Burlap & Barrel and Collective Horology; the plaintiff states; and a group of economists. The court granted all ten motions on September 14. As of the docket's last update on September 30, 2026, we did not locate an amicus brief supporting the government.

      [28]In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court of International Trade 1:26-cv-03555: docket (CourtListener)

      A public copy of the master docket. It shows the August 13 and 19 procedural orders, the August 24 motion, the September 4 response, motions for leave to file ten amicus briefs on September 10 and 11, the September 14 order granting them, the September 18 reply and no ruling through September 30, 2026. CourtListener says its copy may not be up to date.

      In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court of International Trade 1:26-cv-03555: docket (CourtListener)Docket entries 1 through 55, last updated September 30, 2026 at 1:25 p.m.

      [29]In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court No. 26-cv-03555-3JP: Order granting motions for leave to file amicus briefs (ECF No. 48, September 14, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      Upon consideration of the motions of proposed amici curiae (ECF Nos. 23, 25, 26, 29, 31, 35, 42, 44, 46, 47)

      The panel's order granting ten motions for leave to file amicus briefs and deeming the briefs filed. The briefs are those of former trade officials, Barry Appleton, the Goldwater Institute, the Progressive Policy Institute and Ed Gresser, Timothy Meyer and Gregory Shaffer, Consumer Watchdog, the Cato Institute with Michael McConnell and Ilya Somin, Burlap and Barrel and Collective Horology, the plaintiff states, and a group of economists.

      In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court No. 26-cv-03555-3JP: Order granting motions for leave to file amicus briefs (ECF No. 48, September 14, 2026) · U.S. Court of International TradeOrder, pages 1-3

      [30]Amici Curiae Brief of Former U.S. Trade Officials in Support of Plaintiffs (Carla A. Hills, Alan Wm. Wolff and Warren H. Maruyama), ECF No. 23-2, September 10, 2026

      Source excerpt

      This case concerns the Executive Branch's attempt to transform that targeted authority into a sweeping power to impose broad, economy-wide tariffs untethered from the statute Congress enacted.

      A brief by three former senior U.S. trade officials: Carla Hills (U.S. Trade Representative 1989 to 1993), Alan Wm. Wolff (who the brief says originated the administration proposal that became Section 301) and Warren Maruyama (a former USTR general counsel). The court granted leave to file on September 14, 2026.

      Amici Curiae Brief of Former U.S. Trade Officials in Support of Plaintiffs (Carla A. Hills, Alan Wm. Wolff and Warren H. Maruyama), ECF No. 23-2, September 10, 2026Interest of amici, page 1; Summary of argument, pages 2-3

      [31]Joint Brief of Amici Curiae Cato Institute, Michael W. McConnell, and Ilya Somin, ECF No. 42-1, September 11, 2026

      Source excerpt

      This sweeping imposition is just as unlawful as the IEEPA tariffs were, and for many of the same reasons.

      A brief for the Cato Institute, Stanford law professor Michael McConnell and George Mason law professor Ilya Somin. It argues that Section 301 does not authorize worldwide tariffs, that the major questions doctrine applies, and that a contrary reading would raise nondelegation problems. The court granted leave to file on September 14, 2026.

      Joint Brief of Amici Curiae Cato Institute, Michael W. McConnell, and Ilya Somin, ECF No. 42-1, September 11, 2026 · Cato InstituteIntroduction and summary of argument, pages 2-3

      [15]Proposed Brief of Plaintiff States as Amici Curiae in Support of the Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record, ECF No. 46-1, September 11, 2026

      Source excerpt

      The stated rationale for the Tariff Action is pretextual.

      The states' amicus brief in the sample case. It collects public statements by administration officials, including USTR's February 20 statement and Bessent's and Greer's remarks, as evidence that the forced-labor rationale is pretextual.

      Proposed Brief of Plaintiff States as Amici Curiae in Support of the Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record, ECF No. 46-1, September 11, 2026 · Dan RayfieldArgument section A, pages 3-10 (administration statements cited as evidence of pretext)
   3. 30WedSeptember 30, 2026

      Three-judge panel hears argument and says it will rule as quickly as it can

      Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, Timothy Reif and Lisa Wang heard argument from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. ET in New York. Pratik Shah argued for the plaintiffs and Eric Hamilton for the government. Shah said the government must show each country's practices are unreasonable and burden U.S. commerce, and CNBC reported a judge asked "So what?" when he said the administration had additional motives. Hamilton said USTR performed a country-by-country analysis. Reuters reported that the court scrutinized the legal and factual underpinnings of the tariffs, and Agri-Pulse reported that they asked the government about the statute's economic-development language. The judges said before adjourning that they will rule as quickly as they can. As of September 30, 2026, no ruling had been issued.

      [32]Trump's latest global tariffs face trade court challenge (CNBC, September 30, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      The hearing began at 10 a.m. ET and ended at 12:30 p.m. The judges said before adjourning that they will issue a ruling as quickly as they can.

      CNBC's report on the September 30 hearing. It quotes Pratik Shah saying "We know this was not the only reason that they did this," a judge asking "So what?", and Justice Department lawyer Eric Hamilton on USTR's country-by-country analysis. It reports the judges said they will rule as quickly as they can.

      Trump's latest global tariffs face trade court challenge (CNBC, September 30, 2026) · CNBCReport on the oral argument; published 10:04 a.m. and updated 1:33 p.m. EDT on September 30, 2026

      [33]U.S. trade court scrutinizes Trump's forced labour tariffs (Reuters, September 30, 2026; Global News copy)

      Source excerpt

      The government did not need to show "with metaphysical certainty" that forced labour was a "burden" on US commerce before imposing tariffs, he said.

      Reuters' report on the hearing, as republished by Global News. It describes a panel of three judges appointed by Presidents Trump, Obama and Biden, quotes Shah on the "breakneck speed" of the action and reports Hamilton's statement that USTR thoroughly evaluated the prevalence of goods made with forced labor.

      U.S. trade court scrutinizes Trump's forced labour tariffs (Reuters, September 30, 2026; Global News copy) · ReutersReport on the oral argument, posted 2:19 p.m. and updated 5:26 p.m. on September 30, 2026

      [34]Attorneys spar in court over forced-labor tariffs (Agri-Pulse, September 30, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      "The economic development language is not a requirement for the trade representative to consider," he said

      Agri-Pulse's report on the hearing. It reports that the judges asked the government about the statute's economic-development language, quotes Hamilton's answer and Shah's reply, and quotes Judge Timothy Reif's question about extrapolation across similarly situated economies. The article misnames the statute as the Forced Labor Tariffs Act of 1974.

      Attorneys spar in court over forced-labor tariffs (Agri-Pulse, September 30, 2026)Report on the oral argument, published 5:32 p.m. on September 30, 2026

      [35]U.S. attorney defends Trump's forced labor tariffs before trade court (Capital Press, September 30, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      "Forced labor, unfortunately, remains a persistent practice in the world today," he said.

      Capital Press's report on the hearing, quoting Eric Hamilton on the persistence of forced labor and on the economic-development language in the statute, and Pratik Shah on the plaintiffs' political-history argument.

      U.S. attorney defends Trump's forced labor tariffs before trade court (Capital Press, September 30, 2026)Report on the oral argument, published 3:00 p.m. on September 30, 2026

      [36]Court of International Trade Weighs Arguments Against Trump's Forced Labor Tariffs (WWD and Sourcing Journal, September 30, 2026)

      Source excerpt

      it's notable that the USTR hasn't released the results of a second Section 301 investigation launched around the same time.

      A trade-press report on the hearing. It quotes Pratik Shah and Eric Hamilton and says USTR has not released the results of its separate Section 301 investigation of industrial excess capacity in 16 economies, begun in March.

      Court of International Trade Weighs Arguments Against Trump's Forced Labor Tariffs (WWD and Sourcing Journal, September 30, 2026)Report on the hearing and the paragraph on USTR's separate excess-capacity investigation