Professor Somin says HMTX supports the challenge to the Section 301 tariffs
Ilya SominLaw professor and co-author of an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs, responding to Dispute Index by email
In an October 1 response to Dispute Index, Professor Ilya Somin said the Federal Circuit's HMTX decision supports the challengers' position. He pointed to his joint brief with the Cato Institute and Professor Michael McConnell. On printed page 12, the brief distinguishes HMTX's modification of existing China tariffs from the worldwide tariff authority claimed here. On pages 18-19, it argues that HMTX's rejection of a nondelegation challenge depended on statutory limits that the government's current interpretation would remove. Professor Somin said the present tariffs are too sweeping for Section 301 to authorize, and that a statute granting such power would unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority. He cited officials' statements about recreating the IEEPA tariffs as evidence that the forced-labor rationale is a pretext.
“On your other question, nothing so massive and sweeping as the government's current Section 301 tariffs can possibly authorized by the statute. And if a statute did authorize it, it would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive.”
Emailed statement
Read the full email
Thanks for your interest! Our amicus brief explains why the HMTX decision actually cuts against the government's position and supports ours. See pp. 12, 18: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2026-09/FILED%20Section%20301%20Amicus%20Brief_26-3555_2026-09-11.pdf On your other question, nothing so massive and sweeping as the government's current Section 301 tariffs can possibly authorized by the statute. And if a statute did authorize it, it would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive. As for concluding that it's a pretext, that's evident from government officials' own repeated statements that they were trying to recreate the IEEPA tariffs. See the summary of this in our brief, and the extensive evidence in the plaintiffs' filings. Thanks again! Ilya
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
Emailed statement
Emailed statement from Ilya Somin to Dispute Index on HMTX and the Section 301 tariffs
Thanks for your interest! Our amicus brief explains why the HMTX decision actually cuts against the government's position and supports ours. See pp. 12, 18: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2026-09/FILED%20Section%20301%20Amicus%20Brief_26-3555_2026-09-11.pdf On your other question, nothing so massive and sweeping as the government's current Section 301 tariffs can possibly authorized by the statute. And if a statute did authorize it, it would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive. As for concluding that it's a pretext, that's evident from government officials' own repeated statements that they were trying to recreate the IEEPA tariffs. See the summary of this in our brief, and the extensive evidence in the plaintiffs' filings. Thanks again! Ilya
About this source
Somin sent this statement in reply to Dispute Index's questions about HMTX, the scope of Section 301 and the evidence for pretext. The website link identifies Somin; the email is not published there. His response is reproduced as sent, with line breaks added and the signature block and quoted request omitted.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
About this source
A brief for the Cato Institute, Michael McConnell and Ilya Somin. It argues that Section 301 does not authorize sweeping worldwide tariffs of the sort imposed here, that the major questions doctrine applies, and that a contrary reading would raise nondelegation problems. It distinguishes HMTX's modification of existing China tariffs from the authority claimed here and argues that the government's reading would remove the statutory limits HMTX relied on. The court granted leave to file on September 14, 2026.
Before the quotation
Dispute Index asked why HMTX did not control the case, what would establish pretext and whether Professor Somin would regard a version of the action as lawful. The request said DI had not found him addressing HMTX. The joint brief had already discussed the decision on printed pages 12 and 18-19.
After the quotation
Professor Somin directed Dispute Index to the brief's HMTX discussion and to officials' statements cited in the brief and the plaintiffs' filings. The brief argues that the present tariffs claim authority beyond the limits at issue in HMTX.
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, Professor Somin rejects the action as beyond the statute's authority and says a statute authorizing power on this scale would violate the Constitution. Condemned fits his rejection of the tariffs themselves. Challenged the characterization would capture only his disagreement about HMTX and pretext.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseBurlap & Barrel says it is absorbing tariff costs and calls the Section 301 duties unlawful
Burlap & Barrel
“We have refused to raise our prices to customers or to pass the costs along to our partner farmers, so we've covered the increase internally. This has been quite challenging for us as a bootstrapped social enterprise.”Read statement
Gresser says USTR never showed forced-labor goods are traded or underpriced, so it has no right to impose the tariffs
“Ours argues that USTR's 301 investigation has not actually identified a "burden" or "restriction" on U.S. commerce - the standard the statute sets for administrations wanting to use it to impose tariffs - and so the Report of last June does not give USTR a right to impose tariffs.”Read statement
Economists' brief signer Dr. Stan Veuger personally backs Professor Ilya Somin's view that the Section 301 tariffs exceed the statute
“I think the brief speaks for itself on point 1. Speaking for myself I agree with Ilya Somin's view on point 2.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Professor Somin says HMTX supports the challenge to the Section 301 tariffs
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4377-in-an-october-1-response-to-dispute-index
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Professor Somin says HMTX supports the challenge to the Section 301 tariffs". First published: 2026-10-02. Last updated: 2026-10-03. https://disputeindex.com/events/4377-in-an-october-1-response-to-dispute-index