Trump's Third Round of Tariffs Faces New Court Challenge, Citing the Trade Act of 1974
nashnova research
The Trump administration invoked Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act to impose tariffs on 86 countries at once. The Court of International Trade holds a hearing Wednesday — the third major tariff challenge in two years, after the government lost the first two.
Why did the government switch legal tools?
The first two rounds relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and a temporary tariff order. Both were struck down. This time the administration turned to Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act.
Section 301 — a statute that specifically authorizes the president to impose tariffs against unfair foreign trade practices — has a stronger legal footing. Trade lawyer Timothy C. Brightbill called it "fundamentally different" from the earlier bases.
This means → the government is trying a new lane. The first two roads are blocked; Section 301 is the path with the hardest legal foundation still available.
Why are the challengers still unconvinced?
Section 301 has historically been used against a single country for specific unfair practices — including past actions on China. Covering 86 nations at once is unprecedented.
The government's stated reason: these countries failed to crack down on "forced labor," putting U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage on labor protections.
Plaintiffs — several state governments and small businesses — allege the administration failed to provide the evidence the statute requires. They cite public statements by Trump and his advisers promising to restore policies already ruled illegal, arguing the whole exercise is politically motivated with law as a cover.
In plain terms = the challengers' core argument is simple: you swapped the statute, but the move is the same — blanket tariffs on dozens of countries under a new label.
What happened in the first two losses?
Round one: the government used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose differentiated tariffs. The court ruled it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling in February, forcing the government to refund over $160 billion in illegally collected duties.
Round two: a 10% temporary tariff on nearly all imports, also struck down by the Court of International Trade. That case is still on appeal.
This means → the government's tariff record stands at 0-for-2. Wednesday's hearing determines whether the third path holds — and whether another massive refund looms.
What comes next?
Sara Albrecht, president of the Liberty Justice Center, was blunt: "Switching to a different statute doesn't change what the law requires. As long as they keep misusing existing statutes, we will keep challenging them."
Her organization led the winning challenges in both prior rounds and represents two of the small businesses suing this time.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment. This reflects mounting pressure after consecutive defeats — each loss raises the political and legal cost of the next fight.
市场有风险，内容仅供研究参考，不构成投资建议。