25 States Sue Trump Administration Over Section 301 Tariffs — 10%–12.5% Rates on 99.4% of US Imports; "No Rational Fit" Between Forced-Labor Rationale and Blanket Rates

A coalition of 25 Democratic-led states filed a complaint in the US Court of International Trade on August 3 challenging tariffs of 10% or 12.5% imposed on goods from 60 US trading partners — economies collectively accounting for 99.4% of US imports. The tariffs were announced on July 23, one day before temporary Section 122 tariffs expired; the states allege this timing demonstrates the administration sought "continuity" rather than a legitimate new trade action. The states argue that Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits trade action only after a country-specific investigation into unfair practices with tariffs tailored to end that specific conduct — not a blanket global rate imposed after two-and-a-half-month investigations of 60 economies simultaneously. The complaint alleges there is "no rational fit" between the forced-labor rationale and the tariff levels: USTR cited frozen beef from Brazil as a forced-labor example but exempted it from the tariffs; no link was established between tariff rates and the prevalence of forced-labor goods in each economy. The case is the second legal challenge to the new rates, following a parallel small-business lawsuit. For GCs and supply chain counsel: the Section 301 litigation uncertainty is structurally distinct from the earlier IEEPA ruling. Section 301 tariffs have historically been legally durable (Trump's first-term China tariffs remain in effect), but the administration's choice of a uniform 10%–12.5% rate across economies with vastly different trade profiles, applied without country-specific benchmarks or phase-out criteria, creates an unusually strong procedural record for challengers. Clients pricing cross-border contracts over multi-year horizons must account for the possibility that the rate structure changes again — either through litigation, appeal, or further executive action.