By The Epoch Times | Created at 2026-10-01 00:22:11 | Updated at 2026-10-01 01:07:10
55 minutes ago
The U.S. Court of International Trade heard arguments on Sept. 30 over President Donald Trump’s tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners that the administration imposed after concluding those partners failed to block goods made with forced labor.
The United States already bars goods made with forced labor, including a presumption against products from China’s Xinjiang region. The recent tariffs instead hit 60 trading partners for failing to ban or police such goods themselves. Those challenging the tariffs call the forced labor rationale a pretext for another worldwide duty.
The hearing was the third court fight over the same global tariff plan. A three-judge panel in New York heard challenges to 10 percent and 12.5 percent duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 that took effect July 24 and cover approximately 99.4 percent of U.S. imports from 60 trading partners, including the European Union. Small importers and 25 states argued in separate litigation that the forced labor rationale is a pretext for replacing two earlier global tariff programs that courts previously struck down.
The history of the earlier tariffs is central to the latest challenge. On Feb. 20, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the administration’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) “Liberation Day” tariffs on the ground that the statute does not authorize tariffs. The government has since begun refunding tens of billions of dollars in IEEPA duties.
The White House then imposed a temporary 10 percent worldwide duty under Section 122. The Court of International Trade held on May 7 that the levy was unlawful. An appeals court let it remain in effect until that duty expired on July 24. The same day, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) imposed the Section 301 tariffs now at issue, citing investigations that found 60 trading partners failed to ban or enforce bans on goods made with coerced labor.
The plaintiffs told a panel of the trade court on Sept. 30 that Section 301 authorizes action against a specific practice that “burdens,” or adversely affects, U.S. commerce, not a blanket worldwide tariff; that the investigations were rushed and not related to the extent of forced labor goods from each trading partner; and that the rates and coverage track the earlier, invalidated schemes. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) answered that USTR made 60 separate findings, that forced labor is a recognized unfair practice, and that courts should not second-guess the president’s trade policy.
Section 301 requires USTR to investigate a foreign act, policy, or practice; accept public comments; and determine that the practice is unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory and that it burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. Only then may it impose duties aimed at that practice. The plaintiffs say a near-uniform tariff on 60 trading partners after a short investigation is not enough, whereas the government says 60 separate determinations comply with the law.
The case before the panel was brought by Learning Resources Inc. and related importers. Judges repeatedly interrupted both sides with questions concerning how detailed the country findings had to be during the two-and-a-half-hour hearing.
Pratik Shah, attorney for the plaintiff importers, told the court that the forced labor story is not the real reason for the tariffs.
A “constellation of factors” shows the government’s justification was merely a “pretext” provided to allow the resurrection of the president’s worldwide tariff regime, he argued.
“We know this was not the only reason that they did this,” the lawyer said.
Shah argued that the administration had stretched Section 301 beyond the limited tariff power Congress wrote into the statute.
The attorney alleged that USTR, in moving quickly to put new duties in place, failed to make the country-specific findings the law requires. He contrasted the July action with Trump’s first-term Section 301 tariffs on China, which followed country reports and duties aimed at a defined set of practices.
“If you’re going to do it at breakneck speed and try to cover the entire globe, you still have to satisfy the statutory requirements,” Shah said.
For the DOJ, Eric Hamilton said USTR had examined the role of forced labor goods in international trade. The government, he said, did not have to prove “with metaphysical certainty” that forced labor adversely affected U.S. commerce before imposing the tariffs.
The judges asked both lawyers how detailed USTR’s forced labor findings had to be before tariffs could be levied.
They asked Shah whether he was demanding only “more paper” from the government. They asked Hamilton whether the Trump administration had bypassed statutory provisions that deal specifically with forced labor and instead relied on the broader power to act against “unreasonable” trade practices.
It is unclear when the panel will rule.
