California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a coalition of 25 states filed an amicus brief in Learning Resources v. Trump, asking the U.S. Court of International Trade to declare President Donald Trump’s latest tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 illegal. The coalition argues that the tariffs are pretextual and violate the Administrative Procedure Act because they are not targeted at addressing forced-labor harms as required by the statute.
The September 14 filing follows a lawsuit brought by Bonta and the coalition last month challenging tariffs imposed on more than 80 countries that together account for 99.4% of all U.S. imports. Bonta’s office contends that the new duties were designed to re-create tariffs previously invalidated by courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of International Trade, after earlier attempts relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
According to the brief, administration statements show an intention to preserve global tariff revenue through alternative legal authorities. After the IEEPA tariffs were invalidated, the U.S. Trade Representative said the administration would act “in short order to ensure continuity,” including through Section 122, and would accelerate Section 301 investigations. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said alternative authorities would produce “virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.” The coalition presents those statements as evidence that forced labor was not the tariffs’ actual rationale.
The states also point to the scope and speed of the USTR inquiry. The agency investigated 60 economies at once over approximately 2.5 months, rather than conducting country-specific reviews that the filing says typically take 12 months or longer. The coalition says the resulting findings do not explain how individual countries’ forced-labor import practices burden U.S. commerce or how the tariffs would eliminate those practices. It also says the policy provides no standards for lifting tariffs after reforms, adjustment process, sunset date or plan for review.
The brief further argues that the tariffs resemble the previous regimes in their rates, exemptions and timing. The Section 301 duties are set at 10% and 12.5%, while the earlier IEEPA and Section 122 measures imposed a baseline 10% tariff on most goods. The coalition says the new tariffs took effect at the exact minute the prior duties expired and retained similar exemptions. It cites frozen beef from Brazil, one of three products identified in the administration’s investigation as made with forced labor, as an example of a product nevertheless exempted from the tariffs.
Bonta was joined by the attorneys general of Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Pennsylvania and Kentucky. The coalition is asking the trade court to find the Section 301 tariffs unlawful; the supplied material does not state when the court will rule.