NEW YORK — On September 30, the U.S. Court of International Trade will hear oral argument in In Re: Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, a consolidation of the cases challenging the administration’s sweeping new tariffs imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, including the Liberty Justice Center’s Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Collective Horology, LLC v. Greer.
WHEN: 10 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, September 30, 2026
WHERE: Ceremonial Courtroom
U.S. Court of International Trade
One Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
WHO: The Liberty Justice Center’s Director of Litigation and lead counsel for Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Collective Horology, LLC v. Greer, Jeffrey Schwab, Chairman and CEO, Sara Albrecht, and representatives for plaintiffs Burlap & Barrel and Collective Horology will be available following arguments for comments.
For additional information, contact Neil Strauss at [email protected] or visit Media Inquiries.
HOW: The courtroom will be open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. For questions about media access contact the Office of the Clerk at (212) 264-2800.
An audio livestream of the arguments will be available here.
ISSUE BACKGROUND: On July 24, 2026, the Liberty Justice Center filed Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Collective Horology, LLC v. Greer in the U.S. Court of International Trade on behalf of Burlap & Barrel and Collective Horology, claiming the recently imposed Section 301 tariffs did not satisfy the requirements Congress established before imposing sweeping new taxes on American importers.
Section 301 permits the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate and respond to specific unfair foreign-government practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. While responsive action may include tariffs, the statute requires USTR to identify a particular foreign act, policy or practice and explain why its selected response is appropriate and feasible to eliminate that practice.
The challenge concerns tariffs generally ranging from 10 to 12.5 percent on products from 60 economies that collectively account for approximately 99.4 percent of U.S. imports. The lawsuit argues that USTR imposed this near-universal tariff regime without making the country-specific findings, establishing the required connection between identified foreign practices and the tariffs or providing the reasoned explanation Congress required. The tariffs affect products with no identified connection to forced labor and impose immediate costs on American importers and consumers.
The Liberty Justice Center does not dispute that forced labor is wrong or that governments should combat it. Rather, the case argues that this important goal does not permit the executive branch to disregard the limits Congress imposed on Section 301.
The plaintiffs’ position is supported by amicus briefs coordinated by the Liberty Justice Center and filed by former U.S. trade officials, trade-policy scholars and forced-labor experts, including Ambassador Alan Wm. Wolff, who conceived of and drafted the original version of Section 301 as part of the Trade Act of 1974. These amici argue that Section 301 was designed as a targeted trade remedy, not as a general authority for worldwide tariffs. Their filings contend that there is a fundamental mismatch between the conduct USTR identified and the extraordinary scope and cost of the tariffs imposed. They challenge both the factual basis for treating the policies of 60 different economies comprised of 85 countries, as burdens on U.S. commerce and the decision to respond with broadly applied tariffs instead of measures directed at specific goods, industries, companies or supply chains connected to forced labor.
The case also raises significant constitutional concerns. The Constitution assigns Congress the power to impose tariffs and regulate foreign commerce. The plaintiffs argue that interpreting Section 301 to permit tariffs of virtually any scope on nearly any product from nearly any country would exceed the limits Congress established and transfer core legislative authority to the executive branch.
More information regarding the Liberty Justice Center’s challenge to Section 301 is available here.