DISCLAIMER: GoldInvestors.news is not a registered investment, legal or tax advisor or broker/dealer. All investment/financial opinions expressed by GoldInvestors.news are from the personal research and experience of the owner of the site and are intended as educational material. Although best efforts are made to ensure that all information is accurate and up to date, occasionally unintended errors and misprints may occur.

President Donald Trump’s near global tariff policy is back before a federal court, facing another challenge to his effort to impose broad duties on most U.S. imports. A three judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan heard arguments Wednesday.

The challengers include small businesses and states led by Democrats. They contend that the administration exceeded its legal authority by using Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs across dozens of economies.

The latest duties apply rates of 10% or 12.5% to goods from 86 countries. Together, those countries account for 99.4% of U.S. imports, giving the legal dispute enormous reach across American commerce.

The Trump administration says the tariffs respond to countries that failed to enforce bans effectively against trade involving goods produced through forced labor practices. The challengers argue that explanation does not satisfy the statute.

Pratik Shah, an attorney representing the challengers, told the court that a “constellation of factors” showed the government’s stated justification was a “pretext” for restoring Trump’s worldwide tariff regime. “We know this was not the only reason that they did this,” Shah said.

One judge questioned whether other motivations would provide sufficient grounds to reject the duties. “So what?” she asked while examining the significance of the administration potentially having additional reasons for imposing them.

Shah argued that the administration’s “unprecedented” use of Section 301 failed to meet the law’s requirements. He pointed to similar tariffs being placed on dozens of economies following what he described as a truncated investigation.

Under Shah’s argument, the government must demonstrate that each country engaged in unreasonable trade practices that burden U.S. commerce. He told the panel that the absence of findings specific to each country violated the statute.

Eric Hamilton, an attorney for the Department of Justice, defended the process used by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. He said the office performed an individual analysis of each country rather than making one blanket determination.

Hamilton said the agency “relied on data, economic principles, case studies, hearing testimony, and comments, as well as logic, in concluding that all 60 of the investigated economies burden U.S. commerce.” He acknowledged that the determinations shared a common basis.

Wednesday’s hearing began at 10 a.m. ET and concluded at 12:30 p.m. Before adjourning, the judges said they would issue a ruling as quickly as possible.

The administration began investigating foreign forced labor practices in March, shortly after Trump’s protectionist agenda suffered a major legal setback. In February, the Supreme Court struck down the “reciprocal” tariffs Trump had unveiled in April 2025.

That ruling eliminated a major component of the president’s trade program and required the administration to refund more than $100 billion. On the day of the ruling, Trump announced a worldwide 10% tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Section 122 allowed those tariffs to remain in place for only 150 days. During that period, the federal trade court ruled against the duties, but an appeals court paused that decision and allowed the tariffs to remain effective for their full duration.

As the Section 122 tariffs expired in July, the administration imposed new duties under Section 301 of the same 1974 law. A senior administration official described the move at the time as the broadest international labor rights action ever taken by the United States or any other country.

The current challenge argues that the forced labor rationale served as a pretext for restoring tariffs previously rejected by the courts. An August filing asserted that the administration had attempted to recreate materially the same worldwide tariff structure through three separate statutes.

The plaintiffs include small businesses that import products subject to the Section 301 duties and a coalition of 25 states. Department of Justice attorneys maintain that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative fully followed the law.

Trump told Fox News in late July that the Section 301 duties were “ doing the same thing ” as the tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court. Sara Albrecht, chairman and CEO of Liberty Justice Center, said those remarks strengthened the organization’s argument against the new tariffs.

DISCLAIMER: GoldInvestors.news is not a registered investment, legal or tax advisor or broker/dealer. All investment/financial opinions expressed by GoldInvestors.news are from the personal research and experience of the owner of the site and are intended as educational material. Although best efforts are made to ensure that all information is accurate and up to date, occasionally unintended errors and misprints may occur.