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 the local model on 2026-09-15,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Why this leaning score
The model judged this article politically coded and scored it -0.35, but every quote it verified points right, so the score is not published.
Written under an earlier scoring contract, which gave a paragraph
rather than checkable quotes. Re-analysing this article replaces it.
Leaning score withheld for article 9542: score contradicts its own evidence · logged 2026-09-15
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
The Aporia
