Former trade officials Hills, Wolff and Maruyama tell the court the administration is turning "targeted authority" into "a sweeping power"
Alan Wm. WolffPeterson Institute senior fellow and former deputy U.S. trade representative, whom the brief describes as the principal administration draftsman of the Trade Act of 1974, in the joint amicus brief of Carla A. Hills, Alan Wm. Wolff and Warren H. Maruyama
In a September 10, 2026 amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs, three former senior U.S. trade officials, Carla A. Hills, Alan Wm. Wolff and Warren H. Maruyama, said the case concerns the executive branch's attempt to transform Section 301's "targeted authority into a sweeping power to impose broad, economy-wide tariffs untethered from the statute Congress enacted." They said the text, structure and history of Section 301 show Congress intended it to address specific foreign practices identified through a meaningful investigation and supported by findings of harm to U.S. commerce.
“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.”
Original text
Interview
Reporting
Analysis
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
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.
Interview
About this source
CNN's report with interviews of Alan Wm. Wolff, who it says drafted what became Section 301 as the Nixon administration's lead international trade lawyer, and Sara Albrecht of the Liberty Justice Center.
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)Analysis
About this source
A blog post by Alan Wm. Wolff and Warren Maruyama, who describe themselves as former USTR general counsels, predicting the challenge to the Section 301 tariffs will succeed. It is a prediction by the authors and not a ruling.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Hills was U.S. Trade Representative from 1989 to 1993, and Maruyama is a former USTR general counsel. The brief describes Wolff as the principal administration draftsman of the Trade Act of 1974. Wolff had written on August 12 with Maruyama for the Peterson Institute that the tariffs "will likely fail" in court.
After the quotation
The court granted leave to file on September 14. Wolff told CNN on September 25 that "it's being misused," referring to the statute, and told States Newsroom that Section 301 was designed for a rifle shot of retaliation against a single country. As of September 30, 2026, we did not locate a former trade official publicly defending the action as lawful, and 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 amici argue the action exceeds what Section 301 allows, an express rejection of the tariffs as unauthorized. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, because they dispute how the statute is read, but they go on to conclude the tariffs should be set aside.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseJustice 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
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
- Former trade officials Hills, Wolff and Maruyama tell the court the administration is turning "targeted authority" into "a sweeping power"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/3963-in-a-september-10-2026-amicus-brief-supporting
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Former trade officials Hills, Wolff and Maruyama tell the court the administration is turning "targeted authority" into "a sweeping power"". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/3963-in-a-september-10-2026-amicus-brief-supporting