Photo via Reason

Our New Amicus Brief in the Section 301 Tariff Case

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Somin, I. (2026, September 14). Our New Amicus Brief in the Section 301 Tariff Case. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/14/our-new-amicus-brief-in-the-section-301-tariff-case/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Reason · collected 2026-09-14 · by Ilya Somin

Quick Summary

Law professors and scholars, including Michael McConnell and Ilya Somin, filed an amicus brief with the US Court of International Trade in February 2026 to challenge Donald Trump's Section 301 tariffs imposed on imports from sixty trading partners at rates up to 12.5%. The brief argues that these new tariffs, purportedly targeting goods produced by forced labor, exceed the limited authority granted by Section 301 of the Tariff Act and violate principles set forth in previous Supreme Court decisions regarding executive power over trade policies.
Written by AI on 2026-09-15, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

The Cato Institute, along with Stanford law professor Michael McConnell and Ilya Somin, recently filed an amicus brief before the US Court of International Trade challenging former President Donald Trump's significant tariffs imposed under Section 301 of the Tariff Act of 1974. These tariffs aim to impose duties ranging from 10% to 12.5% on imports from approximately sixty countries, a move that the brief argues violates constitutional principles by allowing the executive branch excessive authority over economic matters traditionally reserved for Congress. The filing follows the Supreme Court's February 2026 ruling that invalidated Trump's previous tariffs under IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act), highlighting ongoing concerns about expansive executive powers in trade policy.

Written for “US Tariff Policy” on 2026-10-31, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 US Tariff Policy
Politics · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

This article reads unscored and hedges 8% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Reason
⚖️ Leans strongly left Hedges 2 of 28 claims Outlet record 67/100
“Article A discusses legal doctrines against Section 338 tariffs, while Article B announces a new amicus brief regarding Section 301 tariffs. Though both involve tariff-related legal challenges initiated by Trump, they describe distinct events.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
25
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
8%
2 of 25 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
withheld
no quote in the article backed the model's score
Publisher signals
67/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-09-15 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 1044 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Ilya Somin
24 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 But I have a few additions and caveats that I will append after quoting a few key passages from Dan's post.
2026-10-30 · assertive framing · A Libertarian Perspective on the 2026 Election
🔮 Some of those who vote for the "wrong" Dan Sullivan might rank the "right" one second.
🔮 It also adopts a properly restrictive definition of "rebellion" (which is one of the conditions that might justify federalization of the National Guard).
🔮 Today, the Trump Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block Alaska Senate election results on the grounds they might be influenced by voter "confusion" between incumbent Republican Senator Dan S. Sullivan and a separate Republican candidate with a very similar name (Dan L. Sullivan).
🔮 And I think he actually agrees with me more than the framing of his post might suggest.
2026-10-17 · assertive framing · Who Should Defend Democracy?
🔮 I would like to thank Matt for his interesting and insightful response.
🔮 [I]t seems to me that those who are fully onboard the expansion-or-bust train should have to do more than simply assert that having four new Democratic appointees on the Court in 2029 would be a self-evidently "good" thing.
🔮 The court ruled that federal law does not preempt these policies, and that if if it did, there would be a violation of the anti-commandeering requirements of the Tenth Amendment: Even were the Court to find that the United States has standing and the challenged provisions are preempted—both answered in the negative above—United States' claims would still fail because the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States precludes relief.
🔮 But some would like to revive it.
2026-10-15 · assertive framing · Fusionism and its Limits
🔮 I wish there was something I could say to ease the continuing pain of the victims of the attack and their families.
Also by Ilya Somin
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 24 articles by Ilya Somin →

Topics

Section 301 Supreme Court The Cato Institute the Supreme Court the US Court of International Trade

Subjects

Cato ORG · 3× Michael McConnell PERSON · 3× Trump PERSON · 3× Congress ORG · 2× Supreme Court ORG · 2× the Supreme Court ORG · 2× the US Court of International Trade ORG · 2× Donald Trump's PERSON · 1× Stanford ORG · 1× The Cato Institute ORG · 1×

Narrative

Such a sweeping delegation of a core congressional power would violate the requirements that (1) Congress not make "boundless" delegations of the power to tax, and (2) 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."
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-15
🔮 Here's a summary of our brief, which I prepared for the Cato website (which will also post the brief soon):
2026-09-15 · Reason
Our New Amicus Brief in the Section 301 Tariff Case · assertive framing

Claims (25 extracted, 2 hedged)

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent The Cato Institute, Stanford law Prof. Michael McConnell and I recently filed an amicus brief before the US Court of International Trade, in litigation challenging Donald Trump's massive Section 301 tariffs. asserted
Institute → file → tariffs
Michael McConnell is one of the nation's leading experts on executive power, a prominent conservative originalist constitutional law scholar, and was our lead counsel in the Supreme Court phase of the case that led to the invalidation of Trump's IEEPA tariffs. asserted
that → lead → tariffs
It is an honor to work with him again. asserted
It → work → him
Here's a summary of our brief, which I prepared for the Cato website (which will also post the brief soon): asserted
which → prepare → brief
In February 2026, the Supreme Court invalidated the massive tariffs that President Trump attempted to impose under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). asserted
Trump → invalidate → Act
But that decision did not end Trump's efforts to unilaterally impose onerous tariffs. asserted
decision → end → tariffs
He has sought to recreate sweeping tariffs using other statutes. asserted
He → seek → statutes
Most recently, he has sought to impose massive 10-12.5% tariffs on imports from sixty US trading partners, using Section 301 of the Tariff Act of 1974. asserted
he → seek → 1974
The new tariffs were enacted under the pretext of combatting goods produced by "forced labor." asserted
tariffs → enact → labor
Two groups of small businesses and 25 state governments, led by the state of Oregon, have filed lawsuits in the US Court of International Trade challenging the legality of the Section 301 tariffs. asserted
groups → lead → tariffs
Cato, Professor Michael McConnell, and Professor Ilya Somin, our B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies, have filed an amicus brief opposing the new Section 301 tariffs. asserted
Cato → file → tariffs
McConnell is a law professor at Stanford University, a former federal appellate judge, and served as lead counsel for the victorious plaintiffs in the Supreme Court phase of the IEEPA tariff case. asserted
McConnell → serve → case
Somin previously served as co-counsel in the same case. asserted
Somin → serve → case
We thank Joshua Claybourn, and Daniel Wolff, Alexander Schaefer and others at Crowell & Moring for assistance in drafting and filing the brief. asserted
We → thank → brief
Part I of our brief explains that Section 301 grants limited authority to impose tariffs in response to specific "unreasonable or discriminatory" government policies by "a foreign country" that "burden[] or restrict[] United States commerce." asserted
that → explain → commerce
It is not a blank check for whatever tariffs the executive branch may want to impose against dozens of countries around the world. uncertain
branch → want → world
Part II outlines why, if there is any ambiguity about whether Section 301 authorizes these massive tariffs, the major questions doctrine requires that the issue be resolved against Defendants. asserted
issue → outline → Defendants
That doctrine obliges Congress to "speak clearly" when it assigns to the executive "decisions of vast 'economic and political significance.'" asserted
it → oblige → significance
The impact of these massive Section 301 tariffs is as large or larger than most policies previously invalidated by the Supreme Court on major questions grounds. asserted
impact → invalidate → grounds
And the tariff power is not exempt from major questions scrutiny on the supposed ground that it is a "foreign affairs" power. asserted
it → suppose → ground
Part III shows that if Section 301 did grant the President the power he claims, it would violate the nondelegation doctrine, which constrains transfer of legislative power to the executive. uncertain
which → show → executive
If Defendants' interpretation of Section 301 is correct, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) can impose unlimited tariffs on virtually any imports from any country at any time. asserted
Office → impose → time
Such a sweeping delegation of a core congressional power would violate the requirements that (1) Congress not make "boundless" delegations of the power to tax, and (2) 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." asserted
it → violate → issue
I previously wrote about the Section 301 tariffs and why they are illegal in this Dispatch article. asserted
they → write → article
Cato and I also recently submitted an amicus brief in the related Section 122 tariff case, which is currently before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. asserted
which → submit → Circuit
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support