Twenty-Five States Sue to Block Trump's Section 301 Forced-Labor Tariffs

Twenty-Five States Sue to Block Trump's Section 301 Forced-Labor Tariffs

A powerful coalition of 25 Democratic-led states, co-led by the attorneys general of Oregon, Arizona, and California, filed a major federal lawsuit on Monday, August 3, 2026, in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) (Oregon et al. v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-03467-N/A). The lawsuit seeks to overturn the Trump administration’s newly imposed Section 301 tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 economies (59 countries and the European Union).

The states argue that the administration’s use of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is a "pretextual and unlawful effort" to recreate nearly identical global duties that have already been struck down by federal courts. Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court previously struck down the administration's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and the CIT subsequently invalidated tariffs levied under Section 122 of the Trade Act.

The states' complaint alleges:

"Now, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), under the guise of combatting forced labor in global trade, is determined to again implement sweeping tariffs that the President called for, this time through yet another mechanism used in a novel way: Title III of the Trade Act of 1974, often referred to as 'Section 301.'"

Evidence of Pretext and "continuity"

The lawsuit details how the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) rushed its global forced-labor investigation to "ensure continuity" of the global tariff regime. The USTR announced the new Section 301 tariffs on July 23, 2026—exactly one day before the temporary Section 122 duties were set to expire under court order.¹ According to the complaint, USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer and President Trump openly planned to use Section 301 to impose "exactly" the same tariffs to bypass judicial limits.

The states disavow any support for forced labor but argue that the USTR applied the tariffs indiscriminately across 60 economies—accounting for 99.4% of all U.S. imports—without a rational connection or tailored evidence. The complaint highlights that the USTR's report cited specific evidence of forced labor for only three products: tobacco from Malawi, rice from Burma, and beef from Brazil. Yet, despite being on the short list of offenders, Brazilian beef was exempted from the forced-labor tariffs, which the states argue proves the arbitrary and capricious nature of the policy:

"The Tariff Action admitted that the products tariffed are not limited to—or even related to—products linked to forced labor... USTR’s imposition of Section 301 tariffs in a nearly uniform fashion across 60 countries without an adequate rational or without consideration of relevant differences between countries is proof that the tariffs are not reasonably calculated to reduce use of forced labor and are therefore unreasonable."

Coalition and Broader Economic Friction

The lawsuit represents a major escalation in the ongoing trade war and the blue-state legal resistance to President Trump's unilateral trade policies. The 25-state coalition includes Oregon, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The legal challenge comes as the administration faces other trade-related friction, including the scheduled August 19, 2026, implementation of 50% tariffs on Canadian goods under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (see U.S.-Canada Trade War Explodes as Talks Collapse and Trump Threatens 50% Auto Tariffs).