Oregon-led states' complaint says the administration "cannot use forced labor as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme"
Dan RayfieldOregon attorney general, whose office co-led with Arizona and California the complaint for 25 plaintiffs (23 states and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania); the words are the complaint's, filed by the plaintiff states, not a personal statement
In their August 3, 2026 complaint, the plaintiff states said they oppose forced labor in all its forms and support protections for workers around the globe, but that the administration "cannot use forced labor as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme." They said the tariffs USTR imposed are so broad that they defy USTR's own stated aims and make a mockery of the statute used to justify them. The complaint alleges the tariff action is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.
Responding to
Oregon, Arizona and California, leading the 25 plaintiffs in State of Oregon et al. v. Trump, said in their August 3, 2026 complaint that USTR did not make the country-specific findings Section 301 requires: it investigated 60 economies in about two and a half months, tied the 10% and 12.5% rates to no measured level of forced-labor imports, and left no way for an economy to escape the tariffs.
“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 tariffs the USTR imposed are so broad that they defy the USTR's own stated aims and make a mockery of the statute used to justify them.”
Original text
Official statement
Official statement
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 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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Official statement
About this source
The Oregon Department of Justice's announcement of State of Oregon et al. v. Trump. It lists the co-plaintiff states and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania and says the complaint alleges that the actions exceed legal authority and violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Official statement
About this source
The Oregon attorney general's announcement of a comment letter to USTR from Oregon and 21 other states on the proposed 10% and 12.5% tariffs. Rayfield says Oregon agrees that forced labor has no place in the marketplace.
Before the quotation
In a July 6 release about the states' comments to USTR, Oregon's attorney general, Dan Rayfield, said "Oregon agrees that forced labor has no place in the marketplace" and that "the USTR isn't fighting forced labor with these tariffs." The states had also challenged the Section 122 tariffs; only Washington received relief in that case.
After the quotation
The White House answered the same day that the United States is using its lawful authority. Under the court's August 19 order the states' case is stayed behind the sample case, and the states filed an amicus brief on September 11. 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, the states reject them as a pretext and as contrary to law, which meets the label's test. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because they say they oppose forced labor, but they place no condition on their challenge.
- 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
- Oregon-led states' complaint says the administration "cannot use forced labor as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/3962-in-their-august-3-2026-complaint-the-plaintiff
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Oregon-led states' complaint says the administration "cannot use forced labor as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme"". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/3962-in-their-august-3-2026-complaint-the-plaintiff