On June 18, 2026, USTR initiated a new Section 301 investigation targeting Germany, examining whether Germany's persistent underpayment for innovative pharmaceutical products is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens U.S. commerce.
Posted
On June 15, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in HMTX Industries, LLC v. United States, bringing the challenge to the 2018-2019 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-origin goods to a close and foreclosing importer refund claims.
Posted
Twenty-three non-importer states have filed a notice of cross-appeal from the CIT's May 7, 2026 decision in State of Oregon v. United States, challenging the court's decision to limit injunctive relief on the Section 122 tariffs to only three parties.
Posted
President Trump warned that the United States would impose a 100 percent tariff on French wines and champagnes unless Paris eliminates its digital services tax on American technology companies, escalating trade tensions ahead of the G7 summit.
Posted
As of May 2026, USTR has an unusually large and aggressive portfolio of active Section 301 investigations spanning dozens of trading partners and covering issues from manufacturing overcapacity to forced labor and digital services taxes.
Posted
USTR continues to wield Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as the administration's principal long-term tariff tool, with three active tracks each on its own statutory clock, complementing the IEEPA tariffs now in litigation.
Posted
On May 12, 2026, DOJ reported one of the largest customs-related False Claims Act recoveries to date, a $549.5 million settlement with importers accused of evading AD/CVD duties on Chinese-origin aluminum extrusions.
Posted
USTR Jamieson Greer used a series of public appearances to deliver a single message: tariffs are now a permanent feature of U.S. trade policy, and neither USMCA partners nor China should expect a return to the pre-tariff status quo.
Posted
On May 26, 2026, CBP filed an updated declaration in Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States reporting $20.6 billion in IEEPA refunds disbursed via CAPE while conceding a roughly $10 billion error in its earlier figure.
Posted
The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC removes a preemption defense that had blocked negligent-hiring and negligent-selection claims against freight brokers in some jurisdictions.
Posted
Following the CIT's May 7, 2026 decision invalidating the 10% global tariff imposed under Section 122, the government filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on May 8, 2026, and the duties remain in effect pending review.
Posted
On May 7, 2026, the CIT held that President Trump unlawfully invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose the 10% global tariff meant to replace the IEEPA tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February.
Posted
On May 7, 2026, the CIT held that the President's 10% global tariff imposed under Section 122 was unlawful, but a narrow injunction limited immediate relief to the three plaintiffs with standing.
Posted
In a lengthy April 10, 2026 hearing, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (Judges Barnett, Kelly, and Stanceu) subjected the government and the plaintiff states and importers to sustained questioning over President Trump's use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% global tariff under Proclamation 11012. The questioning focused in particular on what Congress meant by "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits." The government defended the tariffs on the theory that the President may select the current account as the relevant balance-of-payments measure, while plaintiffs contended that Section 122 was intended for circumstances in which U.S. reserve assets are threatened in defending fixed exchange rates, not simply when there is a trade or current-account deficit.
Judge Stanceu pressed both sides on the contemporaneous understanding of balance-of-payments concepts in 1974, including whether Congress was concerned with deficits measured on a "liquidity basis" and whether the statutory reference to "deficits" in the plural signals that Section 122 should be reserved for persistent, multi-year imbalances rather than routine trade deficits. The panel also explored whether the government's reading effectively eliminates meaningful guardrails, since one segment of the balance of payments will almost always be in deficit, and whether the President could invoke Section 122 based on a goods-trade deficit even where that deficit is offset by surpluses elsewhere in the accounts.
The judges devoted significant attention to Section 122's threshold requirement that "fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports," probing whether that language is merely descriptive of the specific problems listed in the statute or operates as an additional precondition the President must satisfy. Judge Kelly in particular suggested that, by analogy to a medical diagnosis triggering a range of treatments, identification of a "fundamental international payments problem" functions as the initial trigger for Section 122 authority, while addressing a balance-of-payments deficit is better understood as a remedy. The panel further questioned whether Section 122 was intended to address global imbalances at the worldwide level and how that fits with today's floating exchange-rate regime.
Remedies and justiciability also featured prominently. The plaintiff states argued that after-the-fact refunds would be inadequate because they are indirect purchasers who experience tariff costs through higher prices rather than duties they pay directly. The judges probed whether such economic-incidence theories of standing "prove too much" by effectively allowing anyone affected by higher prices to sue at the CIT, and raised concerns about redressability where price effects are mediated by contracts and market competition. The panel also discussed the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA for nationwide relief, with plaintiffs contending that CASA's constraints on universal injunctions do not apply in the same way to the CIT's nationwide jurisdictional statute.
Oregon v. United States, Ct. Int'l Trade No. 26-01472, and Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. United States, Ct. Int'l Trade No. 26-01606, remained pending after the hearing, but the argument underscored the court's skepticism about an open-ended construction of Section 122 and its willingness to scrutinize both the statutory preconditions and the appropriate form of relief. For importers and state plaintiffs seeking refunds or prospective relief from the 10% global tariffs, which are set to expire on July 24, 2026 absent congressional extension, the court's ultimate interpretation of "balance-of-payments deficits" and "fundamental international payments problems" will be central to whether Section 122 can sustain the administration's actions.
Update: On May 7, 2026, the CIT ruled the Section 122 tariffs unlawful. Read the full decision here.
Posted