Liberty Justice Center's Albrecht says "an important objective does not give the government permission to ignore the law"
Sara AlbrechtChairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center, the law firm representing plaintiffs Burlap & Barrel and Collective Horology, in a press release
In a July 24, 2026 press release announcing a lawsuit for two small businesses, Sara Albrecht, chairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center, said that forced labor is morally indefensible but that "an important objective does not give the government permission to ignore the law." She said the administration let one global tariff expire and replaced it with another under a different statute, and that changing the statute does not change the law.
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."
“Forced labor is morally indefensible, but an important objective does not give the government permission to ignore the law”
Official statement
Original text
Reporting
Reporting
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
Official statement
About this source
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
About this source
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Reporting
About this source
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."
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Reporting
About this source
A States Newsroom report the day before the hearing. It quotes Alan Wm. Wolff and Sara Albrecht, and says the Justice Department declined to comment and the White House and USTR did not respond on Monday, September 28. It also reports that U.S. Customs and Border Protection was still refunding about $166 billion collected under the IEEPA tariffs.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The Liberty Justice Center filed the complaint the day the Section 301 duties took effect. The same release says the case "does not dispute that governments should combat forced labor." The center was also counsel for Burlap & Barrel in the Section 122 case.
After the quotation
Albrecht told CNBC on July 28 that Trump's Fox & Friends remark "bolsters our argument." In a States Newsroom report republished by CT Mirror on September 29, she described the new duties as "blatantly pretextual." The court's August 19 order stayed the center's case behind the Learning Resources sample case, and the center's clients filed an amicus brief. As of September 30, 2026, 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, Albrecht says the government is ignoring the law by moving the same global tariff policy to a new statute, an express rejection of the tariffs as unlawful. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because she calls forced labor morally indefensible, but she separates that view from her conclusion about the tariffs.
- 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
Learning Resources and six other plaintiffs say the government's determinations are "pretextual and preordained"
Learning Resources, Inc.
“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.”Read statement
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Liberty Justice Center's Albrecht says "an important objective does not give the government permission to ignore the law"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/3961-in-a-july-24-2026-press-release-announcing
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Liberty Justice Center's Albrecht says "an important objective does not give the government permission to ignore the law"". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/3961-in-a-july-24-2026-press-release-announcing