Democrats Target a Different Tariff Program
James has repeatedly argued that the administration’s new tariffs are nothing more than an attempt to sidestep the Supreme Court’s February ruling against Trump’s emergency tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
In public statements, James has described the new policy as an “illegal end run around the Supreme Court.”
However, the administration insists that characterization is inaccurate.
Rather than returning to the IEEPA authority that the Supreme Court invalidated, Trump based the new tariffs on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974—a statute that gives the executive branch authority to respond to unfair foreign trade practices after an investigation by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Supporters of the administration point out that Section 301 carries an entirely different legal foundation than IEEPA and has already been extensively tested in federal court.
Section 301 Already Survived a Lengthy Court Fight
The legal history behind Section 301 may complicate James’ challenge.
HMTX Industries spent years attempting to overturn Trump’s China tariffs imposed during his first administration. The company challenged the tariffs before the Court of International Trade, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and ultimately sought review by the Supreme Court.
After years of litigation, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in June 2026, leaving lower court decisions in place that upheld the government’s authority to impose and expand tariffs under Section 301.
Supporters of Trump’s trade agenda argue that this history demonstrates the durability of the statute and significantly weakens claims that the administration lacks legal authority.
White House Frames Tariffs as a Fight Against Forced Labor
The Trump administration also argues that the new tariffs serve a broader purpose beyond trade negotiations.
According to the White House, the policy is intended to pressure foreign governments to strengthen enforcement against products made with forced labor.
Federal law has prohibited the importation of goods produced with forced labor since 1930, and Section 301 specifically identifies forced labor and other unfair trade practices as legitimate grounds for U.S. action.
Administration officials say the USTR conducted an investigation involving dozens of trading partners and concluded that many countries were failing to adequately prevent goods produced through forced labor from entering global supply chains.
As the official USTR fact sheet states:
“The United States is the only country in the world to adopt, and effectively enforce, a ban on imports made with forced labor.”
The administration argues that the tariffs are designed to encourage trading partners to adopt similar standards rather than allowing products made under abusive labor conditions to compete against American workers.
Supporters say that approach fits squarely within the authority Congress granted under Section 301.
Another High-Profile Legal Battle for Letitia James
The lawsuit also marks another chapter in James’ long-running legal and political conflict with Donald Trump.
Since taking office in 2019, James has repeatedly pursued legal action involving Trump and his businesses, making him a central focus of her tenure as attorney general. Her office secured a civil fraud judgment against Trump in New York, while numerous additional disputes between the state attorney general and the Trump administration have continued in recent years.
James has also joined multistate lawsuits challenging Trump administration policies on immigration, environmental regulations, healthcare funding, and other federal actions.
Supporters of the administration argue that these lawsuits often generate major headlines immediately after filing but face much tougher odds once they reach the courtroom.
White House Signals Confidence
The Trump administration appears unconcerned by the latest challenge.
Officials note that the current tariffs were developed following a formal USTR investigation, included opportunities for public comment, and are already being enforced at ports across the country.
Administration allies also point to signs of renewed manufacturing activity, saying recent economic indicators and positive reactions from portions of the manufacturing, steel, and agricultural sectors support the president’s trade strategy.
White House spokesman Kush Desai expressed confidence that the administration’s legal footing remains solid.
“Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally durable tool since the president’s first term,” spokesman Kush Desai told NBC News, “and they remain so now.”
Whether James and the coalition of Democrat attorneys general can persuade the courts remains to be seen. But unlike the emergency tariffs struck down earlier this year, this lawsuit targets a trade authority that has already weathered years of litigation and emerged intact.
That legal distinction could become one of the defining issues as the next major courtroom battle over President Trump’s trade agenda begins.
