What the Supreme Court didn't answer about Trump's Section 301 tariffs
Key takeaways
- The challenge centered on a single word in the Trade Act of 1974.
- A certiorari petition fares better when it raises one clean legal issue than when it attacks an entire statutory scheme.
- But sometimes a narrow question leaves the broader issue untouched.
Why this matters: political developments that affect policy direction and public trust.
Busch and Barry Appleton, opinion contributor - 07/02/26 11:30 AM ET Comments: Link copied by Marc L. Busch and Barry Appleton, opinion contributor - 07/02/26 11:30 AM ET Comments: Link copied FILE A made in China sticker is displayed on a hat at a store in Chinatown in San Francisco, April 18, 2025. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File) When the Supreme Court declined to hear HMTX Industries v. U.S. last month, it appeared to close the book on the legality of President Trump s first-term Section 301 tariffs against China. But it did not. The court simply declined to answer the question the petition presented. Whether that question was the right one is another matter.
The challenge centered on a single word in the Trade Act of 1974. Section 307 of the Trade Act authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to modify an existing trade action when circumstances change. HMTX Industries argued that expanding tariffs from approximately $50 billion of Chinese imports to nearly $370 billion was not a mere modification but a transformation.
It was a thoughtful argument. It was also a sound appellate strategy. A certiorari petition fares better when it raises one clean legal issue than when it attacks an entire statutory scheme.