Learning Resources and six other plaintiffs say the government's determinations are "pretextual and preordained"
Learning Resources, Inc.Lead plaintiff among seven companies, in a Rule 56.1 motion filed through counsel Akin Gump (Pratik A. Shah)
In their August 24, 2026 motion for judgment on the agency record, Learning Resources, Inc. and six other companies said they do not condone reliance on forced labor or forced-labor imports, but that this is not the real issue. They argued that the defendants' determinations are "pretextual and preordained" and do not meet the requirements of Section 301 or the Administrative Procedure Act. The motion describes the Section 301 action as the administration's third attempt, after the IEEPA and Section 122 tariffs, to impose a global tariff regime.
Responding to
Learning Resources, Inc. and six other companies said in their August 24, 2026 motion that USTR's determinations are "pretextual and preordained" and that the administration has now tried to re-create "materially the same global tariff regime under three disparate statutes."
“To be clear, Plaintiffs do not condone reliance on forced labor or forced-labor imports. But that is not the real issue here. Defendants' pretextual and preordained determinations do not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 301 or the applicable Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") standards. The charade must stop.”
Original text
Original text
Where this statement fits
Are Trump's Section 301 "forced labor" tariffs a lawful remedy, or a pretext to revive struck-down global tariffs?
On July 23, 2026, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, at President Trump's direction, imposed additional tariffs of 10% or 12.5% on imports from 60 economies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The duties took effect July 24. USTR says each economy failed to impose and effectively enforce a ban on imports of goods made with forced labor, which it found unreasonable and a burden on U.S. commerce. Businesses and 25 states sued in the Court of International Trade. They say the forced-labor rationale is a pretext for re-creating the global tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February, and that USTR skipped the country-by-country findings the statute requires. The Justice Department says USTR made findings for all 60 economies on a record of data, testimony and public comments. A three-judge panel heard argument on September 30, 2026. As of that date, no court had ruled on the Section 301 tariffs. The disputed question is whether the tariffs are a lawful remedy under Section 301 or a pretext to revive the struck-down global tariffs.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
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.
Original text
About this source
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The seven plaintiffs are Learning Resources, Inc., hand2mind, Inc., HMTX Industries LLC, Halstead New England Corporation, Metroflor Corporation, Shannon Specialty Floors LLC and shopHMTX LLC. They filed their complaint on July 24, 2026. On August 19 the court named their case the sample case for the other Section 301 forced-labor cases.
After the quotation
The Justice Department answered on September 4 that the pretext argument is baseless. The plaintiffs replied on September 18, and the court heard argument on September 30, 2026. As of that date no court had ruled.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the Section 301 forced-labor tariffs, the plaintiffs reject them as pretextual and contrary to statute, which meets the label's test of expressly rejecting the action. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because they say they do not condone forced labor, but that sentence separates the objective from the tariffs and does not qualify their rejection.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseFormer trade officials Hills, Wolff and Maruyama tell the court the administration is turning "targeted authority" into "a sweeping power"
“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. The text, structure, and history of Section 301 demonstrate that Congress intended the provision to address specific foreign acts, policies, or practices identified through a meaningful investigation and supported by findings of harm to U.S. commerce.”Read statement
Justice Department brief says USTR's actions are "consistent with the text, object, and purpose of the Section 301 statute"
United States Department of Justice
“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, as well as with the President's firm commitment to create a level playing field for U.S. workers, producers, and exporters by conditioning access to the U.S. market on concrete action to prohibit international trade in forced labor goods. The investigations and responsive actions under Section 301 are the culmination of decades of efforts by the U.S. Government to eradicate forced labor from international supply chains. USTR followed Section 301's "demanding procedural prerequisites" when taking those actions.”Read statement
Peterson Institute's Cline says the forced-labor provision is not "a credible basis for replacing" the struck-down tariffs
“As a consequence, the forced-labor provision does not constitute a credible basis for replacing the "reciprocal" tariffs ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.”Read statement
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Learning Resources and six other plaintiffs say the government's determinations are "pretextual and preordained"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/3960-in-their-august-24-2026-motion-for-judgment
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Learning Resources and six other plaintiffs say the government's determinations are "pretextual and preordained"". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/3960-in-their-august-24-2026-motion-for-judgment