Wolff says Section 301 gives no global tariff power and the forced-labor cases were unlawful
Alan Wm. WolffFormer USTR deputy and WTO deputy director-general; PIIE fellow
Describing the amicus brief he joined with Carla Hills and Warren Maruyama, Wolff says Section 301 is only for use against individual countries' practices, that no Congress or prior administration treated it as global tariff authority, that it could not confer such authority under the Constitution, and that USTR's forced-labor cases were arbitrary and capricious and not authorized by law. Later in the post he argues that only a constitutional ruling would stop the administration from replacing invalidated tariffs.
“We argue that Section 301 is only for use against individual countries' practices, not a global measure like Section 122. We state that no prior administration and no Congress in its drafting of the provision, or subsequently in is amendments of the statute, ever indicated that Section 301 conferred global tariff authority. We argue that Section 301 could not do so under the Constitution and that USTR's forced labor Section 301 cases were arbitrary and capricious, and not authorized by law.”
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
Analysis
About this source
Wolff argues the tariffs exceed lawful authority and explains why he wants a constitutional limit. The Section 301 case remains pending.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Wolff writes that he assumes the president will ultimately lose the Section 301 forced-labor case and that he joined former USTR Carla Hills and former USTR General Counsel Warren Maruyama in filing an amicus brief on the side of the small importers.
After the quotation
He then describes the September 30 oral argument, where he says the judges did not address the tariffs' constitutionality, and says an appeal is likely if the government loses.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to whether the Section 301 forced-labor tariffs are a lawful remedy or a pretext, Wolff sets out the arguments of the amicus brief he joined: the tariffs exceed Section 301, could not be authorized under the Constitution, and rest on arbitrary and capricious investigations. He also says he expects the president to lose. That rejects the tariffs' lawfulness, so condemns fits.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseLiberty Justice Center asks the court to set aside the forced-labor tariffs
Liberty Justice Center
“Our answer: Set aside these unlawful tariffs.”Read statement
DOJ defends USTR's tariff authority and opposes setting the tariffs aside
United States Department of Justice
“Congress included an expansive definition of “unreasonable” acts, policies, or practices, in Section 301.”Read statement
Burlap & 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
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
- Wolff says Section 301 gives no global tariff power and the forced-labor cases were unlawful
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6935-describing-the-amicus-brief-he-joined-with-carla
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Wolff says Section 301 gives no global tariff power and the forced-labor cases were unlawful". First published: 2026-10-27. Last updated: 2026-10-27. https://disputeindex.com/events/6935-describing-the-amicus-brief-he-joined-with-carla