The Section 301 Tariffs Case
Changing the Statue Does Not Change the Law
The Liberty Justice Center is challenging the administration’s attempt to transform Section 301—a targeted trade-enforcement statute—into authority for a sweeping global tariff regime. These new import taxes harm American businesses and consumers and cross a fundamental constitutional line: the executive branch may impose tariffs only within the authority and limits established by Congress.
Our goal
Continuing the Fight Against Unconstitutional Tariffs
After the Liberty Justice Center successfully challenged the administration’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and won a trial-court ruling against its replacement tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the administration turned to another statute: Section 301.Their application of the statue is unconstitutional, and we’re fighting back on behalf of our clients.
Our Case
Burlap and Barrel, Inc. and Collective Horology, LLC v. Greer
On July 24, 2026, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of Burlap & Barrel, a mission-driven American spice company, and Collective Horology, an independent watch maker, challenging the administration’s latest tariffs in the U.S. Court of International Trade.
The lawsuit argues that the Office of the United States Trade Representative failed to satisfy the requirements Congress established before tariffs may be imposed under Section 301. USTR cannot take a targeted, country-specific and practice-specific trade-remedy law and stretch it into a nearly universal power to tax American imports.
why it matters
The Constitutional Problem with the Section 301 Tariffs
The administration imposed new tariffs—generally 10 or 12.5 percent—on merchandise from 60 economies that collectively account for approximately 99.4 percent of all imports into the United States. The tariffs are nominally intended to pressure foreign governments to prohibit and more effectively police imports made with forced labor.
Forced labor is wrong, and governments should combat it. But an important policy objective does not give the executive branch permission to disregard the law.
Section 301 requires USTR to identify an actionable foreign act, policy, or practice; determine that the particular practice burdens or restricts U.S. commerce; and select an appropriate and feasible response directed toward eliminating it. USTR cannot combine dozens of separate investigations into a nearly universal tariff regime without making the country-specific findings and connections Congress required or providing a reasoned, record-based explanation for its determinations.
Threat to Business
These tariffs impose immediate costs on American businesses—even when their products and supply chains have no identified connection to forced labor.
Threat to Consumers
These tariffs impose immediate costs on American businesses—even when their products and supply chains have no identified connection to forced labor.
Threat to the Constitution
These tariffs impose immediate costs on American businesses—even when their products and supply chains have no identified connection to forced labor.
about section 301
A Scalpel, Not a Sledgehammer
Section 301 is a targeted trade law tool that lets USTR respond to specific unfair foreign practices—not a general grant of tariff authority.
What is Section 301?
Section 301 is part of the Trade Act of 1974. It gives the United States Trade Representative authority to investigate and respond to certain unfair foreign-government acts, policies, or practices that harm American commerce.
Under Section 301, USTR may investigate whether a particular foreign government’s conduct is unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory and whether that conduct burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. When the statutory requirements are satisfied, USTR may take responsive action, which can include imposing tariffs.
But Section 301 is not a blank check. It contains limits designed to ensure that tariffs respond to an identified trade problem rather than serve as a general source of presidential taxing power.
What is Section 301 normally used for?
Section 301 is ordinarily used as a targeted trade-enforcement tool. It allows the United States to respond when a particular trading partner engages in an unfair practice that harms American commerce—for example, intellectual-property theft, discriminatory treatment of American companies, barriers to American products, or violations of trade commitments.
The process includes an investigation, consultations with the foreign government, findings supported by the administrative record, public notice and comment, and a reasoned decision about the proper response.
Any resulting action must be tied to the identified foreign practice and designed to obtain its elimination. Section 301 was not designed to let the executive branch announce a predetermined worldwide tariff policy and search afterward for a statutory justification.
Our Arguments
Section 301 Is a Trade Remedy—Not a Blank Check
Section 301 gives the executive a powerful but limited tool: the authority to respond to specific, identified foreign trade practices—not a general license to impose sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries at once. Our lawsuit challenges USTR’s action on three grounds, arguing that it exceeds the statute’s actual scope, reflects arbitrary and predetermined decision-making rather than reasoned analysis, and—if allowed to stand—would hand the executive branch a degree of unchecked tariff power the Constitution reserves for Congress.
Our lawsuit argues three core points:
These Sweeping Tariffs Exceed Section 301
Section 301 is a targeted, economy-specific and practice-specific remedial authority. It authorizes action only after USTR determines that an identified foreign act, policy, or practice is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.
USTR did not adequately establish how the particular acts, policies, or practices of each of the 60 covered economies burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Nor did it sufficiently explain why imposing tariffs on substantially all products from those economies—including products with no identified connection to forced labor—would eliminate the particular practices under investigation.
The Section 301 Action Is Arbitrary and Capricious
USTR imposed near-uniform duties on economies with materially different laws, enforcement records, and trade profiles. It did not adequately explain why those tariff rates, that extraordinary range of products, or that nearly universal geographic scope constituted an appropriate and feasible response.
USTR also failed to meaningfully consider more targeted alternatives aimed at goods, industries, companies, or supply chains associated with forced labor.
Statements from senior administration officials provide additional evidence that the result was predetermined. Those statements indicated that the administration intended to replicate the invalidated IEEPA tariff regime and carry it forward through Section 122 and Section 301—even before USTR had completed, and in some instances begun, the investigations supposedly supporting the Section 301 tariffs.
An Expansive Reading of Section 301 Would Be Unconstitutional
The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs and regulate foreign commerce. Congress may authorize the executive branch to act, but the executive must remain within the boundaries Congress established.
Properly interpreted, Section 301 contains meaningful limits: USTR must identify an actionable foreign practice, establish its burden on U.S. commerce, and direct its response toward eliminating that practice.
If Section 301 instead permits the executive branch to impose tariffs of virtually any amount on nearly any product from nearly any country, it lacks a meaningful limiting principle and unconstitutionally delegates Congress’s legislative power to the executive branch.
This case is about ensuring that the administration follows those limits—and preserving the separation of powers for every future administration.
Meet Our Clients
Businesses Standing for Liberty
Sign up below, and we’ll keep you updated and send you information about refunds for unconstitutional tariffs.
Questions?
Send us an email at [email protected].
support our work
\We fight for our clients free of charge, and we need your support to continue challenging the government and representing the hard-working men and women who run America’s businesses.