The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump Imposes Massively Harmful and Illegal Section 301 Tariffs
The new policy is based on sham investigations, and runs afoul of the major questions and nondelegation doctrine.
Today, the Trump Administration announced massive new tariffs, supposedly authorized by Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974:
The Trump administration on Thursday finalized new double-digit tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners as it seeks to reconstitute sweeping duties struck down by the Supreme Court in February.
The new duties, which range from 10 to 12.5 percent, follow a five-month investigation into trading partners' efforts to root out products made with forced labor from their supply chains and are set to take effect just as a temporary global 10 percent tariff expires.
Starting Friday, 17 trading partners — including Canada, the European Union, Indonesia, the United Kingdom and Mexico — will face a 10 percent duty, along with another 10 countries that agreed to address forced labor through signed trade agreements with the U.S.
Another 43 other countries, including Japan, China, South Korea and Australia, will face a 12.5 percent tariff rate….
The Section 301 tariffs may be meant to replace temporary Section 122 tariffs, which expire today, and which were rightly invalidated by the US Court of International Trade in May (though appellate litigation continues, and Trump may yet hope to use Section 122 again). The new tariffs will predictably raise prices for consumers, reduce economic growth, inflict grave harm on the US economy, and further poison our relationships with allies and trading partners.
As I have previously explained, the planned Section 301 tariffs are illegal for some of the same reasons as the IEEPA tariffs invalidated by the Supreme Court in February, in a case I helped litigate. Georgetown University scholar Peter Harrell outlined some additional reasons why the Section 301 tariffs are illegal, in a guest post here at this site. Unlike IEEPA, Section 301 does authorize some tariffs. But it does not permit a massive power grab like this.
In a Dispatch article published today, my Cato Institute colleague Scott Lincicome - an expert on trade policy - explains in detail why the forced labor "investigations" supposedly justifying the Section 301 tariffs are a sham, and a pretext for a massive presidential power grab. As he notes, the conclusion of the "investigations" was clearly predetermined in advance, the tariffs imposed have no real connection to any genuine forced labor issues, and many of the countries subject to the massive new tariffs actually have tighter restrictions on goods produced by forced labor than the US itself does. He concludes that, if courts uphold these tariffs, the president would have the kind of unlimited tariff authority the Supreme Court denied him in the IEEPA case:
The forced labor action is a clear abuse of the law and a serious departure from past U.S. government practice—even under President Trump. By no reasonable measure can it be considered anything other than a ham-fisted way to reinstall Trump's tariff wall and protect it from another IEEPA-like defeat in federal court. In the latter case, the administration might be successful: Section 301 is more legally durable than the untested IEEPA and, while the forced labor action is obviously flimsy, a court might simply be unwilling to question the president's determinations and actions. We shall see.
If the courts do rubber-stamp these tariffs, their problems will likely extend well beyond just this sham case. Section 301 could become a way for USTR to tariff any country, at any rate, and for any reason and duration, as long as it checks the law's minor procedural boxes. The actual merits of the case, the quality of the agency's findings, or its efforts to consider public input won't really matter. Just say a country doesn't adequately do something you say is harmful and then apply blanket tariffs after meaningless hearings and comments. Voila.
This is precisely the open-ended tariff power grab the courts checked with their IEEPA rulings, just with a little more procedural window-dressing. In such a case, Section 301 would be a broad tariff generator instead of the targeted tool Congress thought it designed, and it'll surely be used by Trump or any future president who wants to tariff trading partners over carbon emissions, labor standards, AI regulation, or anything else. Republicans cheering the forced labor tariffs today should consider how they'll feel when a Democrat holds the tariff pen.
As explained in my and Peter Harrell's earlier posts on the Section 301 tariffs, Trump's policy violates the requirements of Section 301 itself, and also runs afoul of the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to "speak clearly" when authorizing the executive to make "decisions of vast economic and political significance." At the very least, Section 301 does not clearly authorize the president to start a massive trade war against almost all our major trading partners on the basis of a sham investigation and dubious pretexts.
If, somehow, Section 301 does authorize this action, it would violate the constitutional nondelegation doctrine, which limits delegation of legislative power to the executive. Tariffs are a specifically enumerated congressional power. While the Supreme Court's nondelegation precedent is far from completely clear, last year's decision in FCC v. Consumers' Research held that delegations of the power to impose taxes and other financial levies must have a clear "floor" and "ceiling" and that "[t]he guidance needed is greater when an agency action will affect the entire national economy than when it addresses a narrow, technical issue" [quotation omitted]. There is no meaningful floor or ceiling under the administration's approach to Section 301. And the power claimed is clearly one that massively affects the "entire national economy."
In the IEEPA case, the Supreme Court emphasized that "the president does not have the power to "impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time." Chief Justice Roberts went on to note that, while some statutes do grant the president tariff authority (among which he specifically cited Section 301), "[w]hen Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so… subject to strict limits."
Trump's power grab today respects no such limits. I hope and expect it will be challenged in court. And when that happens, courts should strike it down, just like they did with the IEEPA and Section 122 tariffs.
Facts Only
* The Trump administration announced new tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
* Tariffs range from 10 to 12.5 percent.
* 17 trading partners, including Canada, the European Union, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, and Mexico, will face a 10 percent duty.
* 10 countries that signed trade agreements with the U.S. to address forced labor will face a 10 percent duty.
* 43 other countries, including Japan, China, South Korea, and Australia, will face a 12.5 percent tariff rate.
* The policy follows a five-month investigation into efforts to remove forced labor from supply chains.
* New tariffs take effect Friday.
* These measures coincide with the expiration of temporary global 10 percent tariffs under Section 122.
* The U.S. Court of International Trade invalidated Section 122 tariffs in May.
* The Supreme Court invalidated IEEPA tariffs in February.
Executive Summary
The Trump administration has implemented a series of new tariffs on 60 trading partners, citing Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. These duties, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, are predicated on a five-month investigation into the use of forced labor within global supply chains. This move occurs as temporary Section 122 tariffs expire and follows previous judicial setbacks where the Supreme Court and the Court of International Trade invalidated other tariff authorities, including those under IEEPA.
Critics argue that these "forced labor" investigations serve as a pretext for an unlawful expansion of executive power. They contend that the action violates the major questions doctrine and the constitutional nondelegation doctrine, as it imposes vast economic shifts without clear congressional authorization. While Section 301 provides some tariff authority, opponents suggest the current application exceeds legal limits and will lead to increased consumer prices and damaged diplomatic relations. The legality of these tariffs remains a subject of anticipated judicial challenge.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that the executive branch is utilizing "procedural window-dressing"—in this case, forced labor investigations—to circumvent judicial checks and reclaim broad tariff powers that the Supreme Court previously restricted. By shifting from the invalidated IEEPA and Section 122 authorities to Section 301, the administration is attempting to maintain a "tariff wall" while shielding it from legal defeat.
The root cause is a fundamental tension between executive agility in trade and the constitutional requirement for legislative precision. This echoes a broader historical pattern of "administrative creep," where agencies use narrow, morally unimpeachable justifications (e.g., eliminating forced labor) to establish expansive precedents for state power. The unstated assumption is that once the procedural "box" is checked, the merits of the investigation become irrelevant, turning a targeted tool into a general-purpose economic weapon.
The implications involve a significant shift in economic agency. If the courts validate this approach, future presidents—regardless of party—will possess a "tariff generator" capable of targeting any nation for any reason, from carbon emissions to AI standards, effectively transferring the power of the purse from Congress to the White House.
Patterns detected: none
Bridge Questions:
1. If the forced labor investigations are procedurally correct but substantively flawed, does the legal authority for tariffs rely on the process or the result?
2. How would the legitimacy of these tariffs change if they were applied uniformly to all nations, regardless of their specific labor laws?
3. What specific "floor" or "ceiling" would Congress need to implement to satisfy the nondelegation doctrine while still allowing the president to respond to trade emergencies?
Counterstrike Scan: A coordinated campaign would use the "forced labor" angle as a moral shield to deflect from the economic impact of the tariffs. The actual content here does the opposite; it treats the moral angle as a pretext to emphasize the legal and economic risks. The analysis is clean.
Sentinel — Human
The text is highly opinionated and structured as an extended legal and policy argument, displaying the characteristic intensity and personal interpretive framing of a specialized commentator rather than objective reporting.