Section 301 does not Allow Broad Tariff on Forced Labor Issue

[ABS News Service/09.10.2026]

A three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade has asked for additional briefing in the lead challenge to the Administration’s Section 301 forced-labor duties, narrowing the dispute into threshold and merits questions that could determine both whether the action survives and how broadly any relief would apply.

The case is In re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, No. 26-cv-03555-3JP. In an October 2 order, the CIT directed the parties to file supplemental briefs by October 16 following September 30 oral argument before Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, Timothy Reif and Lisa Wang.

The court’s questions fall into four main categories.

First, the panel asked the parties to address the US Trade Representative’s Office’s statutory authority under Section 301. The core issue is whether USTR may use that statute to respond to foreign governments’ alleged failures to adopt or enforce forced-labor import prohibitions. The challengers argue that Section 301 does not authorize this kind of broad duty program; the government argues that the foreign policies at issue are unreasonable and burden or restrict US commerce.

Economic Development

Second, the court asked about Section 301’s economic-development language. That question appears directed at whether USTR properly accounted for statutory limits or considerations involving the development level of the targeted countries. The issue matters because plaintiffs argue USTR treated disparate economies too uniformly despite differences in legal regimes, enforcement capacity and trade exposure.

Third, the panel focused on standing. DOJ has argued that the sample plaintiffs import from only some covered economies and therefore cannot challenge duties tied to countries with no direct connection to their supply chains. Plaintiffs contend the case presents common legal defects in a single agency action and should not be broken country by country. The court also asked whether the standing of state plaintiffs and other parties may be considered in deciding the full reach of the case.

Fourth, the court asked about remedy. If the panel finds USTR exceeded its authority or failed to support its determinations, it must decide whether relief would be broad, limited to particular plaintiffs, limited to particular countries, or returned to USTR for further explanation. That question could prove as important as the merits because it would determine whether the ruling affects the full program or only a narrower set of entries.

Impact

The practical stakes are immediate for importers sourcing from covered economies. A broad ruling against USTR could open the door to refunds, protest strategies or reliquidation claims for affected entries. A narrower ruling could leave the duties in place for countries not tied to the named plaintiffs, limiting relief to particular importers or supply chains. A remand could preserve collection while forcing USTR to supply more detailed country-specific findings.

The case also matters beyond the forced-labor duties. If CIT accepts USTR’s theory, Section 301 could remain a flexible vehicle for replacing or supplementing broader tariff authorities. If the court rejects it, the ruling could constrain the administration’s ability to use countrywide trade practices – rather than product-specific conduct or bilateral market-access barriers – as the basis for across-the-board import duties.