Alan Wm. Wolff
Role at the time: Peterson 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
Statement summary
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.”
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.
Why we used 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.