25 states challenge Trump’s Section 301 tariffs in federal court

Twenty-five states are challenging the Trump administration’s new Section 301 tariffs in federal court, arguing that the action exceeds the authority Congress granted under the Trade Act of 1974.

The case, State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, Court No. 1:26-cv-03467, was filed August 3, 2026, in the U.S. Court of International Trade. The case remained ongoing as of August 29, according to the court docket record. A three-judge panel has scheduled oral argument for September 30, 2026.

The lawsuit has not stopped collection of the duties. The tariffs took effect at 12:01 a.m. on July 24 and remain in effect while the court considers the states’ claims.

What the tariffs cover

The challenged action applies to 59 countries and the European Union, or 60 economies in all. The administration says those economies account for approximately 99.4% of U.S. imports.

The rates are generally 10% or 12.5%. For certain products from the European Union, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Switzerland, the Section 301 rate is calculated net of most-favored-nation duties. Product exemptions also apply, so the duties do not affect every imported good or component in the same way.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative says the tariffs followed investigations, two rounds of public hearings, more than 2,100 public comments, written comments on the proposed action, and consultations with more than 45 foreign governments. USTR said the investigations concerned trading partners’ failure to impose and effectively enforce bans on imports made with forced labor.

The administration describes Section 301 as a lawful tool for responding to unfair foreign acts, policies or practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. The White House says the tariffs are intended to pressure foreign governments to adopt and enforce forced-labor import prohibitions.

What the states argue

The states’ complaint alleges that Section 301 requires the government to connect trade action to particular foreign acts, policies or practices. They argue that the tariff schedule is not sufficiently tailored to country-specific conduct involving forced-labor import bans.

The states also allege that the action is arbitrary and capricious and exceeds executive authority reserved in part to Congress. They contend that the administration used the forced-labor rationale as a continuation or replacement of earlier broad tariff programs. That is a litigation allegation, not a judicial finding.

The states are asking the trade court to vacate the tariff action and order refunds. The court has not granted that relief, and no merits ruling has been issued.

What it could mean for importers and consumers

Importers must currently comply with the duties and determine whether particular products qualify for an exemption or a different rate calculation. The practical effect will vary by product, supplier, importer, retailer and supply chain.

Some businesses may absorb part of the cost, negotiate with suppliers or adjust sourcing. Others may pass some costs through to customers. The lawsuit does not establish that all consumers will face a specific price increase.

The dispute could still have broad consequences because of the number of economies covered. If the states prevail, the court could address whether the tariff action must be withdrawn and whether affected importers are entitled to refunds. If the administration prevails, the decision could reinforce its use of Section 301 for broad trade enforcement.

What happens next

The court’s procedural orders set written briefing deadlines in September. The government’s consolidated response is due September 4, any supporting amicus briefs are due September 11, the states’ reply is due September 18, and a joint appendix is due September 21. Oral argument is scheduled for September 30 at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York.

September 30 is a scheduled hearing date, not a promised ruling date. The central legal question is whether the administration stayed within the limits Congress placed on Section 301 or used the statute too broadly as a substitute for a general tariff power.

Until the court issues further relief, the tariffs remain collectible. Importers affected by the duties should preserve entry records and monitor the case, because any future refund process would depend on the court’s remedy and applicable customs procedures.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.