Stan Veuger
Role at the time: Senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and signatory of the economists' amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs, in an emailed comment sent on his behalf, speaking for himself
Statement summary
Dr. Stan Veuger, an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow and the first signatory of an economists' amicus brief that says it does not address the parties' legal arguments, told Dispute Index that, speaking for himself, he agrees with Professor Ilya Somin on the government's reliance on HMTX. Professor Somin had told Dispute Index that nothing as sweeping as the tariffs could be authorized by Section 301 and that a statute authorizing it would be an unconstitutional delegation. Asked whether the brief's finding that forced labor's effect on U.S. commerce is small bears on the statute's burden test, Dr. Veuger said the brief speaks for itself.
“I think the brief speaks for itself on point 1. Speaking for myself I agree with Ilya Somin's view on point 2.”
Read the full email
I think the brief speaks for itself on point 1. Speaking for myself I agree with Ilya Somin's view on point 2.
Hannah Bowen of the American Enterprise Institute's media relations team sent this comment by email, attributing it to Dr. Stan Veuger personally and not to the group of brief signers as a whole, in reply to a Dispute Index request of October 1, 2026. That request asked (1) whether the signers' finding that forced labor's effect on U.S. commerce is small bears on the statute's requirement that a practice "burdens or restricts United States commerce," and (2) how the signers respond to the government's reliance on the Federal Circuit's 2025 decision in HMTX Industries v. United States. The link is to Dr. Veuger's AEI profile; the comment itself is not published there.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Why we used this label
Relative to the Section 301 forced-labor tariffs, Dr. Veuger personally endorses Professor Somin's view that the statute cannot authorize tariffs this sweeping and that a statute that did would be unconstitutional, a legal position the economists' brief itself does not take. That rejects the tariffs as lawful, so we labeled it Condemned. On the statute's burden test he added nothing beyond the brief.