Why Trump's new tariffs are less likely to lose a legal battle
✓Skip to content
President Trump’s new global tariffs based on forced-labor violations have already drawn a lawsuit and criticism from American allies, but experts say the legal basis may make them harder to strike down than previous tariffs.
Trump’s previous “liberation day” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were struck down earlier this year after the Supreme Court said he overstepped his authority. His subsequent temporary tariffs using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to address balance-of-payment deficits were restricted to a maximum of 150 days.
But these tariffs being brought instead under the law’s Section 301 are entirely different.
“It’s not an emergency tariff,” said Nat Halvorson, former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative and partner in Baker McKenzie’s International Trade practice. “It’s a tariff based on a statute that’s focused on addressing unfair trade.
“The statute has provisions that are very clearly directing the U.S. trade representative to take action, and the statute itself covers a whole litany of trade complaints that are fair game,” he added.
The tariffs, announced Thursday by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer’s office, will be placed on more than 60 economies and range from 10 percent to 12.5 percent. They are designed to combat forced labor by the U.S.’s trading partners.
They will replace the blanket 10 percent tariffs under Section 122 that the president announced in February, which expire Friday.
Ten percent tariffs will be put on countries that have made commitments to adopt and enforce forced labor import prohibitions, while countries that have not passed a forced labor import law will face a 12.5 percent tariff.
“The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” Greer said in a statement.
“Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere,” he continued.
Scott Lincicome, vice president of the General Economic and Stiefel Trade Policy Center at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, called the Section 301 tariffs a “legal end-around.”
“The administration is trying to recreate the tariff wall that the Supreme Court struck down, and they’re just checking a bunch of procedural boxes to make sure that the courts don’t strike it down again,” he said.
Section 301 tariffs require an investigation to have found that a foreign country burdened U.S. commerce through discriminatory practices.
Trump previously used this tool during his first term to slap tariffs on Chinese exports, and the statute survived several legal attempts to knock it down.
“I think somebody will challenge the tariffs because the economic stakes are very big, and frankly, the report was flimsy,” Lincicome said. “The question really is less about whether the report is flimsy, but more about whether a court is willing to come to that conclusion. I think that’s pretty unlikely.”
The tariffs were hit immediately with a legal challenge Friday from two small businesses, spice and e-commerce business Burlap & Barrel and high-end watch retailer Collective Horology. The companies are represented by part of the same legal team that took down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. The lawsuit argues the administration is going out of Section 301’s bounds.
“It is not a freestanding authorization to tax substantially all imports from substantially all trading partners,” the lawsuit reads. It also says that the announcement should’ve taken a “country-specific” approach instead of broadly hitting 60 trading partners.
Halvorson said other presidents have used Section 301, but these are being used on an “unprecedented scale,” especially by the number of countries involved.
“Trump brought it back from the dead basically during his first term,” Lincicome said of Section 301.
U.S. allies are pushing back at the allegations and calling for them to be reversed.
Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell called it an “extremely disappointing decision” in an interview with Sky News. Australia was hit with a 12.5 percent tariff.
“We don’t believe there’s any justification for the American government to increase the tariff on Australian goods,” he said. “We believe we do take the issue of modern slavery seriously. We have some of the most progressive legislation anywhere in the world. We say that these tariffs are unjustified and we call on the United States Government to reverse them.”
New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said in a social media post the American investigation into the forced labor violations “did not provide meaningful evidence to support claims in relation to forced labour.”
“Tariffs are not the way — they drive up costs and uncertainty for businesses,” he wrote on social platform X. “That’s why we’re pursuing trade agreements all over the world – to provide our exporters with security and keep growing our economy.”
Still, some have praised the new tariffs. The Coalition for a Prosperous America welcomed the decision.
“The administration’s new labor tariff action is an important acknowledgment that the unlimited duty-free tariff era is over,” Jon Toomey, the group’s president, said in a statement. “Critics in Congress should explain why putting American workers, farmers and ranchers into unfettered price competition with like-product producers in other countries makes sense.”
Lincicome said he could see them lasting “through the end of the Trump administration.”
But Halvorson said he could see “a higher tariff at the end of the administration than there was at the beginning, and I don’t expect that would change anytime soon.”
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Read the full story at Axios ↗ · The Hill ↗
President Trump’s new global tariffs based on forced-labor violations have already drawn a lawsuit and criticism from American allies, but experts say the legal basis may make…
This lens runs the verified story through Cinnamon's AI — wired in the next step.
Skip to content
President Trump’s new global tariffs based on forced-labor violations have already drawn a lawsuit and criticism from American allies, but experts say the legal basis may make them harder to strike down than previous tariffs.
Trump’s previous “liberation day” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were struck down earlier this year after the Supreme Court said he overstepped his authority. His subsequent temporary tariffs using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to address balance-of-payment deficits were restricted to a maximum of 150 days.
But these tariffs being brought instead under the law’s Section 301 are entirely different.
“It’s not an emergency tariff,” said Nat Halvorson, former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative and partner in Baker McKenzie’s International Trade practice. “It’s a tariff based on a statute that’s focused on addressing unfair trade.
“The statute has provisions that are very clearly directing the U.S. trade representative to take action, and the statute itself covers a whole litany of trade complaints that are fair game,” he added.
The tariffs, announced Thursday by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer’s office, will be placed on more than 60 economies and range from 10 percent to 12.5 percent. They are designed to combat forced labor by the U.S.’s trading partners.
They will replace the blanket 10 percent tariffs under Section 122 that the president announced in February, which expire Friday.
Ten percent tariffs will be put on countries that have made commitments to adopt and enforce forced labor import prohibitions, while countries that have not passed a forced labor import law will face a 12.5 percent tariff.
“The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” Greer said in a statement.
“Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere,” he continued.
Scott Lincicome, vice president of the General Economic and Stiefel Trade Policy Center at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, called the Section 301 tariffs a “legal end-around.”
“The administration is trying to recreate the tariff wall that the Supreme Court struck down, and they’re just checking a bunch of procedural boxes to make sure that the courts don’t strike it down again,” he said.
Section 301 tariffs require an investigation to have found that a foreign country burdened U.S. commerce through discriminatory practices.
Trump previously used this tool during his first term to slap tariffs on Chinese exports, and the statute survived several legal attempts to knock it down.
“I think somebody will challenge the tariffs because the economic stakes are very big, and frankly, the report was flimsy,” Lincicome said. “The question really is less about whether the report is flimsy, but more about whether a court is willing to come to that conclusion. I think that’s pretty unlikely.”
The tariffs were hit immediately with a legal challenge Friday from two small businesses, spice and e-commerce business Burlap & Barrel and high-end watch retailer Collective Horology. The companies are represented by part of the same legal team that took down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. The lawsuit argues the administration is going out of Section 301’s bounds.
“It is not a freestanding authorization to tax substantially all imports from substantially all trading partners,” the lawsuit reads. It also says that the announcement should’ve taken a “country-specific” approach instead of broadly hitting 60 trading partners.
Halvorson said other presidents have used Section 301, but these are being used on an “unprecedented scale,” especially by the number of countries involved.
“Trump brought it back from the dead basically during his first term,” Lincicome said of Section 301.
U.S. allies are pushing back at the allegations and calling for them to be reversed.
Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell called it an “extremely disappointing decision” in an interview with Sky News. Australia was hit with a 12.5 percent tariff.
“We don’t believe there’s any justification for the American government to increase the tariff on Australian goods,” he said. “We believe we do take the issue of modern slavery seriously. We have some of the most progressive legislation anywhere in the world. We say that these tariffs are unjustified and we call on the United States Government to reverse them.”
New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said in a social media post the American investigation into the forced labor violations “did not provide meaningful evidence to support claims in relation to forced labour.”
“Tariffs are not the way — they drive up costs and uncertainty for businesses,” he wrote on social platform X. “That’s why we’re pursuing trade agreements all over the world – to provide our exporters with security and keep growing our economy.”
Still, some have praised the new tariffs. The Coalition for a Prosperous America welcomed the decision.
“The administration’s new labor tariff action is an important acknowledgment that the unlimited duty-free tariff era is over,” Jon Toomey, the group’s president, said in a statement. “Critics in Congress should explain why putting American workers, farmers and ranchers into unfettered price competition with like-product producers in other countries makes sense.”
Lincicome said he could see them lasting “through the end of the Trump administration.”
But Halvorson said he could see “a higher tariff at the end of the administration than there was at the beginning, and I don’t expect that would change anytime soon.”
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Read the full story at Axios ↗ · The Hill ↗
Skip to content
President Trump’s new global tariffs based on forced-labor violations have already drawn a lawsuit and criticism from American allies, but experts say the legal basis may make them harder to strike down than previous tariffs.
Trump’s previous “liberation day” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were struck down earlier this year after the Supreme Court said he overstepped his authority. His subsequent temporary tariffs using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to address balance-of-payment deficits were restricted to a maximum of 150 days.
But these tariffs being brought instead under the law’s Section 301 are entirely different.
“It’s not an emergency tariff,” said Nat Halvorson, former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative and partner in Baker McKenzie’s International Trade practice. “It’s a tariff based on a statute that’s focused on addressing unfair trade.
“The statute has provisions that are very clearly directing the U.S. trade representative to take action, and the statute itself covers a whole litany of trade complaints that are fair game,” he added.
The tariffs, announced Thursday by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer’s office, will be placed on more than 60 economies and range from 10 percent to 12.5 percent. They are designed to combat forced labor by the U.S.’s trading partners.
They will replace the blanket 10 percent tariffs under Section 122 that the president announced in February, which expire Friday.
Ten percent tariffs will be put on countries that have made commitments to adopt and enforce forced labor import prohibitions, while countries that have not passed a forced labor import law will face a 12.5 percent tariff.
“The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” Greer said in a statement.
“Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere,” he continued.
Scott Lincicome, vice president of the General Economic and Stiefel Trade Policy Center at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, called the Section 301 tariffs a “legal end-around.”
“The administration is trying to recreate the tariff wall that the Supreme Court struck down, and they’re just checking a bunch of procedural boxes to make sure that the courts don’t strike it down again,” he said.
Section 301 tariffs require an investigation to have found that a foreign country burdened U.S. commerce through discriminatory practices.
Trump previously used this tool during his first term to slap tariffs on Chinese exports, and the statute survived several legal attempts to knock it down.
“I think somebody will challenge the tariffs because the economic stakes are very big, and frankly, the report was flimsy,” Lincicome said. “The question really is less about whether the report is flimsy, but more about whether a court is willing to come to that conclusion. I think that’s pretty unlikely.”
The tariffs were hit immediately with a legal challenge Friday from two small businesses, spice and e-commerce business Burlap & Barrel and high-end watch retailer Collective Horology. The companies are represented by part of the same legal team that took down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. The lawsuit argues the administration is going out of Section 301’s bounds.
“It is not a freestanding authorization to tax substantially all imports from substantially all trading partners,” the lawsuit reads. It also says that the announcement should’ve taken a “country-specific” approach instead of broadly hitting 60 trading partners.
Halvorson said other presidents have used Section 301, but these are being used on an “unprecedented scale,” especially by the number of countries involved.
“Trump brought it back from the dead basically during his first term,” Lincicome said of Section 301.
U.S. allies are pushing back at the allegations and calling for them to be reversed.
Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell called it an “extremely disappointing decision” in an interview with Sky News. Australia was hit with a 12.5 percent tariff.
“We don’t believe there’s any justification for the American government to increase the tariff on Australian goods,” he said. “We believe we do take the issue of modern slavery seriously. We have some of the most progressive legislation anywhere in the world. We say that these tariffs are unjustified and we call on the United States Government to reverse them.”
New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said in a social media post the American investigation into the forced labor violations “did not provide meaningful evidence to support claims in relation to forced labour.”
“Tariffs are not the way — they drive up costs and uncertainty for businesses,” he wrote on social platform X. “That’s why we’re pursuing trade agreements all over the world – to provide our exporters with security and keep growing our economy.”
Still, some have praised the new tariffs. The Coalition for a Prosperous America welcomed the decision.
“The administration’s new labor tariff action is an important acknowledgment that the unlimited duty-free tariff era is over,” Jon Toomey, the group’s president, said in a statement. “Critics in Congress should explain why putting American workers, farmers and ranchers into unfettered price competition with like-product producers in other countries makes sense.”
Lincicome said he could see them lasting “through the end of the Trump administration.”
But Halvorson said he could see “a higher tariff at the end of the administration than there was at the beginning, and I don’t expect that would change anytime soon.”
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Read the full story at Axios ↗ · The Hill ↗
This lens runs the verified story through Cinnamon's AI — wired in the next step.
- President Trump’s new global tariffs based on forced-labor violations have already drawn a lawsuit and criticism from American allies, but experts say the legal basis may make…