The Court of International Trade (CIT) heard arguments today on the Trump Admin's July 24 Section 301 tariff action, which is the current basis for a majority of Trump Term II tariffs. Let's unpack: 1. Several plaintiffs have challenged the July 24 tariffs, which flowed from a USTR Section 301 investigation into whether 60 economies’ failure to either legally prohibit imports made with forced labor or to effectively enforce a ban amounted to an "unreasonable" trade practice that burdens US commerce. The CIT has effectively consolidated the cases and today’s hearing was in the lead case. 2. The plaintiffs (as well as amici) made a variety of arguments in their briefs, including both statutory arguments (USTR failed to meet specific statutory requirements) and constitutional ones (primarily major questions doctrine and non-delegation arguments). 3. The CIT focused mostly on the statutory arguments, with two in particular drawing much of the CIT's attention. (A) Does Section 301 require that USTR show with specificity that each foreign country's failure to impose a ban on imports of forced labor (or failure to enforce such a ban) actually burdens U.S. commerce, and if it does, does USTR's handful of case studies and illustrative examples of how third country imports of products made by forced labor imports might burden U.S. commerce meet the statutory requirement? And (B), picking up on a point made by my Georgetown colleague Greg Shaffer and Duke's Tim Meyer, did 1988 and 2018 amendments to Section 301 that specify two specific types of forced labor practices that are covered by Section 301--failing to ban forced labor domestically, and failing to enforce agreements on forced labor--foreclose using 301 to address other issues related to forced labor, including the import ban at issue in the challenged 301? 4. There was also significant discussion about whether, if USTR did not meet the statute's requirements, the 301 should be remanded for further fact-finding or whether the tariffs should be vacated, and a bit of discussion about whether a ruling against the tariffs should apply to all countries covered by the 301, or only some. These arguments reflected the unsettled nature of standing issues and injunctive relief in light of recent Supreme Court precedents. 5. The judges had tough questions for both the plaintiffs and the government and I, for one, did not finish the hearing with a definitive view on how the CIT would rule. That said, all three judges appeared to have least have significant questions about whether USTR adequately followed the statute. As I have written elsewhere, I personally see the July 24 tariffs as substantially broader than what Section 301 authorizes. 6. The timeline of other major Trump tariff cases suggest the CIT will probably issue an opinion before Thanksgiving, but that, however the CIT rules, the courts will allow the government to keep collecting the tariffs as appeals play out over the next 12-18 months.