If you’ve been following the forced-labor tariff landscape this year, you already know it expands fast. Here’s the latest chapter — and it’s one that could have real implications for importers across nearly every product category.
How We Got Here
When the Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration’s IEEPA tariffs in February 2026, the administration needed a new legal vehicle — fast. What followed was a rapid sequence: Section 122 tariffs (a 10% global levy with a built-in 150-day statutory clock) went into place immediately, and USTR simultaneously launched Section 301 forced-labor investigations into 60 trading partners.
Those investigations moved quickly. USTR initiated the 60 forced-labor investigations on March 12, 2026, determined the practices were actionable on June 2, and announced the final tariffs on July 23, 2026 — taking effect at 12:01 a.m. ET the following day, precisely when the Section 122 tariffs expired.
The timing was not a coincidence.
What the Tariffs Actually Cover
The result was an additional ad valorem duty of either 10% or 12.5%, applied broadly across most product categories in Chapters 1–97 of the tariff schedule, covering 60 economies — including some of the biggest U.S. trading partners: China, the EU, UK, Canada, Mexico, India, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, and dozens more.
The rate depends on USTR’s determination: 10% for countries with prohibitions on imports made with forced labor, and 12.5% for those without such a prohibition. There are exemptions — notably for goods already subject to Section 232 duties and for Canadian and Mexican goods entered duty-free under USMCA — but the scope is sweeping.
For most importers, this isn’t a niche tariff affecting a specific product category. It’s a broad-based cost increase layered on top of whatever else is already in place.
The Legal Challenges
The tariffs landed in court almost immediately, and the litigation is significant.
On August 3, 2026, 25 state attorneys general — co-led by Oregon, Arizona, and California — filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging the tariffs as ultra vires, arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Their core argument: USTR used forced labor as a pretext to continue a broad tariff scheme, assigned rates without demonstrating any meaningful connection to actual forced labor conditions, and rushed an investigation that was designed to fill the gap left by expiring Section 122 authority.
That case joins separate actions brought by spice importer Burlap & Barrel, watch importer Collective Horology, and a group of companies, including Learning Resources, which was also a plaintiff in the IEEPA Supreme Court litigation. The three actions are proceeding together before the CIT under a master case.
On September 14, consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog filed an amicus brief asking the court to halt tariff collection entirely — arguing that even if the tariffs are eventually invalidated, importer refunds won’t automatically reach the consumers and businesses who actually paid higher prices.
What This Means for Importers — Right Now
The honest answer is that the tariffs are in effect today and will remain in effect until a court orders otherwise. The administration’s answer to the states’ complaint is due October 2. After that, briefing schedules, motions for judgment on the agency record, and potential stay requests will play out — likely over months.
Here’s what that means practically:
Don’t wait for litigation to do your planning. Legal challenges to tariffs can take years to resolve, and there’s no guarantee that a refund process will reach importers, even if the courts rule against the administration.
Audit your exemptions carefully. The USMCA carve-out, the Section 232 overlap exemption, and the product-specific annexes contain real relief for some importers — but the details matter. A product that looks like it qualifies may not, and vice versa.
Model your landed cost with the tariff in place. If this rate becomes permanent — or stays in place for another year or two — what does that mean for pricing, sourcing, and supplier agreements?
Watch the October 2 filing. The administration’s response to the states’ complaint will signal how aggressively the government intends to defend the legal basis for these tariffs. That filing may also clarify whether any exemptions or modifications are forthcoming.
The Bottom Line
The forced-labor Section 301 tariffs are the latest iteration of a tariff strategy that has survived multiple legal challenges — and been struck down in others. The litigation is real and the legal arguments are substantive, but courts move slowly and importers pay duties today.
At Coppersmith Global Logistics, we help clients navigate exactly this kind of fast-moving trade environment — understanding what applies, what’s exempt, and how to plan when the rules keep changing.
If you have questions about how these tariffs affect your imports, reach out to our team.
