Trade Court Grills DOJ Over Forced-Labor Tariffs — Government Lawyer Couldn't Name the Statute's Exact Hook

We told you to watch September 30 closely. Here's what actually happened: a three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade spent Wednesday afternoon pressing the government to explain, in plain terms, exactly where in the statute it found the authority to tariff nearly everything the United States imports. The government struggled to give a clean answer. The court didn't rule. And the duty you're paying on entries from dozens of countries right now hasn't moved an inch.

What Happened

On September 30, 2026, judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, Timothy Reif, and Jane Restani Wang heard oral argument in In Re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court Number 26-03555-3JP — the consolidated challenge we previewed in our prior coverage of this litigation. The proceeding, held in the Ceremonial Courtroom at One Federal Plaza in New York and confirmed on the Court of International Trade's own proceedings calendar, brought together plaintiffs from two small-business coalitions and twenty-five state attorneys general against the Department of Justice, which is defending USTR's authority to impose the tariffs.

According to contemporaneous reporting on the hearing, the panel's questioning went well beyond procedural formalities. A DOJ attorney was pressed on whether USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer had disregarded the statutory framework Congress built specifically to address forced-labor trade practices, and struggled to identify the precise textual hook in Section 301 that supports tariffing goods from 86 economies — covering, by the government's own account, 99.4% of all U.S. imports — rather than targeting the specific unfair practice the statute was designed to remedy. Judges also questioned whether USTR's evidentiary record supported treating such a broad swath of global trade as a single actionable violation. The panel gave no indication of when it will rule, and challengers reportedly asked the court to resolve the legal issues on the existing record rather than give the government another opportunity to supplement its justification — a path the CIT took in the earlier HMTX Industries Section 301 litigation, where the court initially found USTR's explanation inadequate but let the agency cure the defect rather than vacate the tariffs outright.

This marks the third time in roughly two years that a federal tariff program built on a sweeping, near-universal theory of executive authority has landed in front of a reviewing court, after the Supreme Court's February 2026 rejection of the IEEPA tariffs and the CIT's earlier invalidation of the Section 122 balance-of-payments tariffs. The forced-labor duties took effect the same day Section 122 expired — a timing coincidence the plaintiffs have leaned on heavily to argue pretext.

What It Means for Importers

Nothing changed at the border this week, and that's the point worth internalizing. CBP is still assessing the 10% or 12.5% Section 301 forced-labor duty under the Chapter 99 provisions laid out in CSMS #69326983, on top of whatever MFN, China Section 301, or Section 232 duties already apply to the same product. A skeptical bench during oral argument is a meaningful signal, but it is not a ruling, and it is definitely not a refund. The underlying tariff action remains exactly as USTR published it in the July 28, 2026 Federal Register notice.

We've now watched this script play out across three separate tariff authorities this year. In every case — Section 122, IEEPA, and now potentially Section 301 — CBP's posture on refunds has been consistent: importers who are named plaintiffs or who filed a timely protest get in line for relief; importers who simply paid the duty and waited generally do not, regardless of how the litigation eventually resolves. Our earlier piece on the CAPE refund tool's rollout for IEEPA entries covers exactly how narrow that eligibility window has turned out to be in practice, and there's no reason to expect a more generous approach here.

Practical Next Steps

1. Don't change anything at entry based on the hearing. The 10% or 12.5% duty still applies to covered goods from the 86 investigated economies exactly as before September 30.
2. File or renew protests on affected entries now. If you haven't protested Section 301 forced-labor duties paid since July 24, 2026, the 180-day clock is running and skeptical judges don't toll it.
3. Track whether your entries sit inside or outside active litigation. Given CBP's track record, plaintiff status in a pending case may matter more than the eventual legal outcome.
4. Expect a slow opinion, then likely an appeal. No timeline was set for a ruling, and whichever side loses is expected to appeal to the Federal Circuit — budget your landed costs assuming these duties persist well into 2027.
5. Keep your stacking math current. Nothing in this hearing changes how the forced-labor duty layers on top of MFN, China Section 301, or Section 232 duties on the same HTS line.

If you want help identifying which of your entries carry this duty or reviewing your protest posture, reach out to our team — we can walk your entry history line by line.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Court of International Trade rule on the Section 301 forced-labor tariffs on September 30, 2026?

No. The three-judge panel of Jennifer Choe-Groves, Timothy Reif, and Jane Restani Wang heard oral argument in In Re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases on September 30, 2026, but issued no ruling and set no timeline for a written decision. The case remains pending.

Why was the government attorney questioned about the statute?

Judges pressed a Department of Justice attorney to identify the precise provision of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 that authorizes tariffing goods from 86 economies covering 99.4% of U.S. imports, rather than targeting a specific unfair trade practice in one country as the statute was historically applied. Reporting on the hearing indicated the attorney struggled to give a direct answer.

Do I still have to pay the Section 301 forced-labor duty while the case is pending?

Yes. CBP continues to assess the 10% or 12.5% duty under the Chapter 99 provisions in CSMS #69326983 on covered entries from the 86 investigated economies. Oral argument does not suspend tariff collection, and importers should keep paying the assessed duty while separately preserving refund rights through a timely protest.

How does this case compare to the earlier IEEPA and Section 122 tariff rulings?

It is the third major court challenge in roughly two years to a broad, near-universal U.S. tariff program. The Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs in February 2026, and the Court of International Trade had earlier ruled against the Section 122 balance-of-payments tariffs, which expired the same day the Section 301 forced-labor tariffs took effect. Plaintiffs argue that timing shows the new tariffs are a pretextual replacement for the earlier, invalidated programs.