Twenty-Five States Sue to Block Trump's New Section 301 Forced-Labor Tariffs
The high-stakes battle over President Donald Trump's unilateral trade policy has escalated into a major multi-state lawsuit. On Monday, August 3, 2026, a coalition of 25 Democratic-led states—co-led by the Attorneys General of Oregon, Arizona, and California—filed a complaint1 in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) challenging the administration's new Section 301 "forced-labor tariffs"2 on 60 trading partners.
The lawsuit alleges that the Section 301 tariffs, which range from 10% to 12.5% and took effect on July 24, 2026, are an unlawful, ultra vires workaround designed to bypass the judiciary. The states argue that the administration is using forced labor as a "pretext" to recreate the sweeping global tariff regime that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in February 2026 (which had been imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act). The targeted countries account for 99.4% of all U.S. imports, meaning the economic burden will be passed directly to American consumers.
In their complaint, the state attorneys general allege that the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the procedural requirements of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Specifically, they argue that the USTR completed its "investigations" into 60 complex global economies in a mere two and a half months, bypassed mandatory country-specific consultations, and failed to explain how the flat tariff rates would actually reduce forced-labor practices.
The states also point to glaring internal contradictions in the tariff structure itself, noting that while the USTR’s investigation cited frozen beef from Brazil as one of only three specific products linked to forced labor, the administration exempted Brazilian beef from the final duties.
The White House and USTR have rejected the lawsuit's claims, asserting:
"Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally durable tool since the president's first term, and they remain so now."
The plaintiff coalition includes the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, along with the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
-
An instance of The primary check on unilateral executive power has shifted to multi-state litigation coalitions. — Coordinated lawsuits led by Democratic state attorneys general are serving as the primary check against the executive branch's unilateral trade policies. ↩︎
-
An instance of Unilateral executive policy shifts trigger immediate litigation and legislative blockades. — A sweeping and unilateral presidential tariff directive was met with immediate, coordinated multi-state litigation to block its implementation. ↩︎