10-12.5% Tariffs Hit 99% of Imports; Legal Scrutiny Intensifies Post-SCOTUS

Legal professionals are dissecting the Trump administration's strategic shift to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, after the Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision gutted the Liberation Day tariffs. The new duties, ranging from 10% to 12.5% on 60 nations and touching 99% of U.S. imports, rely on a novel forced labor enforcement argument, raising fresh questions about the boundaries of executive trade power and the adequacy of statutory authorization.

On July 24, 2026, President Donald Trump enacted a sweeping new tariff regime under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposing duties of 10% to 12.5% on imported goods from 60 trading partners. This action covers a staggering 99% of all U.S. imports and comes just months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the administration’s earlier “Liberation Day” tariffs, which had been far broader. The new tariffs, which replace temporary import taxes that expired early Friday morning, represent a legal pivot designed to withstand judicial scrutiny by grounding trade restrictions in the enforcement of international labor standards—specifically, the prohibition on goods produced by forced labor.

“

The new duties, ranging from 10% to 12.5% on 60 nations and touching 99% of U.S.

The legal underpinning of this move is Section 301, a statutory tool that allows the President to respond to foreign trade practices deemed unreasonable or discriminatory. The U.S. Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer, justified the tariffs by asserting that the targeted nations have failed to adequately enforce their own laws against forced labor. In a public statement, Greer declared, “Finally, we have put our foot down, and we have told countries, ‘You need to take action, you need to prohibit the import of goods made with forced labor, and you need to enforce these laws so that we all have a level playing field.’” The administration’s focus on forced labor is a strategic choice; it aligns with widely accepted human rights norms and may strengthen the regulatory case, potentially insulating the tariffs from the constitutional and statutory challenges that felled the Liberation Day measures.

Indeed, the Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision invalidating the prior tariffs looms large over this latest action. While the full opinion has not been publicly parsed in these sources, the Court’s ruling likely turned on the limits of presidential authority under delegated trade statutes, perhaps echoing the nondelegation doctrine or requiring clearer congressional authorization for such broad economic measures. By invoking Section 301 and pairing it with forced labor enforcement rather than a generalized national security rationale, the administration appears to be attempting a more tailored legal argument. However, skeptics may view the forced labor justification as a pretext; the tariffs remain extremely broad, affecting nearly every major trading partner except those covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and exempted products like oil, gas, and fertilizer.

Legal challenges are almost certain. Importers, foreign governments, and domestic businesses may argue that the tariffs exceed the scope of Section 301, particularly if the USTR’s underlying investigation (which appears to have targeted 16 countries accounting for 70% of imports for overproduction) does not directly connect to a forced labor finding for each of the 60 nations. There is a risk that the administration has engaged in a blanket imposition of duties without the individualized, fact-specific determinations required by the statute. Moreover, the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework, though diminished in recent years, still provides a potential avenue for dispute settlement, where the U.S. might face complaints that the measures are discriminatory or violate tariff bindings.

The exemptions for oil, gas, fertilizer, and USMCA-compliant goods highlight the administration’s attempt to minimize immediate economic disruption and likely to avoid conflict with international treaty obligations under the USMCA. This selective approach may also be a deliberate legal strategy to narrow the scope of any potential injunction, should a court find the tariffs impermissibly broad. The USTR’s ongoing investigation into overproduction by 16 countries further signals that this is not the final chapter; additional tariff actions could follow, creating a cascading effect of trade litigation and regulatory uncertainty.