OAKLAND — The brief argues the tariffs are pretextual and not targeted to address forced labor harms as required by statute. It further contends that the tariffs are designed to re-create tariffs previously declared illegal by various courts. The coalition argues that because the tariffs are pretextual, they violate the Administrative Procedure Act.

"President Trump is so intent on raising the cost of living for Americans that he is willing to break law after law to continue his tariff regime," said Bonta. "Imposing these tariffs under Section 301 has nothing to do with forced labor and everything to do with continuing the President’s failed economic policy and reimposing the global tariffs that the Supreme Court invalidated."

"We urge the Court of International Trade to declare the President’s tariffs under Section 301 illegal," Bonta said. "Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the President’s illegal tariffs." A recent analysis concluded that nearly 90% of the costs of tariffs in 2025 were paid by American consumers and businesses.

President Trump imposed tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Courts including the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of International Trade struck down prior attempts to impose tariffs using IEEPA and Section 122. After IEEPA tariffs were declared illegal, the U.S. Trade Representative stated the Administration would take action "in short order to ensure continuity" including by imposing Section 122 tariffs.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared that the Administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs, including Section 301. Bessent stated this would result in "virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026." The USTR promised to initiate investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and to "conduct these investigations on an accelerated time frame." The USTR affirmed that "[b]y the time the five-month period has elapsed, we’ll have completed [the] investigations under Section 301 that Secretary Bessent talked about." The USTR stated that the specific authorities this administration is using have changed, but trade strategy has not.. We are continuing to impose tariffs[.]

The USTR fast-tracked an investigation into 60 economies at once. The investigation occurred in a 2.5-month timeframe. Typical Section 301 inquiries take 12 months or more.

The USTR’s findings under Section 301 do not specify how any country’s forced-labor import practices burden U.S. commerce. The findings do not explain how global tariffs will eliminate forced labor practices. The USTR identifies no mechanism by which any economy can secure release from the tariffs in exchange for reforms. There are no standards or benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of a country’s new restrictions or improved enforcement. There is no adjustment process, no sunset date, and no plan to revisit these tariffs.

The Section 301 tariff rates are 10% and 12.5%. These rates largely track the former IEEPA and Section 122 tariffs, which both imposed a baseline 10% tariff on most goods. The Section 301 tariffs exempt similar goods as the Section 122 tariffs.

The Administration’s report on its investigation identified just three products made with forced labor to justify tariffs on dozens of countries. Frozen beef from Brazil is exempted from the tariffs.

Why It Matters

The legal challenge centers on whether the executive branch can use Section 301 authority to maintain tariff levels after courts invalidated previous legal justifications. The coalition of 25 states argues that the accelerated investigation timeline and lack of specific findings regarding forced labor indicate the tariffs serve as a revenue tool rather than a targeted trade remedy. With nearly 90% of tariff costs borne by domestic consumers and businesses in 2025, the outcome affects pricing across sectors representing 99.4% of U.S. imports.

The case follows a pattern of administrative shifts in legal authority to sustain trade policies. After the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not authorize unilateral tariff setting, the administration pivoted to Section 301 while maintaining similar rate structures and exemptions. The Court of International Trade must determine if this transition complies with the Administrative Procedure Act and statutory requirements for Section 301 investigations, particularly given the compressed timeframe and broad scope of the affected economies.

Timeline

On August 14, 2026, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the imposition of tariffs on over 80 countries. On September 14, 2026, California Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Learning Resources v. Trump. The amicus brief was filed as part of a coalition of 25 states. The coalition includes the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

On September 14, 2026, Attorney General Bonta said, "President Trump is so intent on raising the cost of living for Americans that he is willing to break law after law to continue his tariff regime." He also stated, "Imposing these tariffs under Section 301 has nothing to do with forced labor and everything to do with continuing the President’s failed economic policy and reimposing the global tariffs that the Supreme Court invalidated." Bonta said, "We urge the Court of International Trade to declare the President’s tariffs under Section 301 illegal." He added, "Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the President’s illegal tariffs."

What's New

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. 229 (2026), the Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to unilaterally set tariffs. The ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump vacated many of the tariffs implemented during the second Trump administration.