Tax Hot Topics
States and businesses sue the Trump administration over a raft of new tariffs that impact imports from nearly every U.S. trade partner; a judge in the U.S. Court of International Trade orders the streamlining of cases related to tariff refunds; and the Trump administration imposes new product-specific tariffs on polysilicon, a key component in semiconductors and solar panels.
Court challenges to new Section 301 duties
Twenty-five states have sued the Trump administration over its imposition of new duties on imports from 86 countries and Hong Kong under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The suit filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) on Aug. 3, challenges the administration’s assertion that the new tariffs are aimed at addressing unacceptable forced labor practices in other countries. Administration officials have publicly said the Section 301 tariffs were meant to replace previous ones, imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and struck down as illegal by the Supreme Court.
“The Plaintiff States oppose forced labor in all its forms and support protections for workers around the globe,” the state attorneys general wrote in their lawsuit. “But the administration cannot use forced labor as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme.”
In addition to the lawsuit by 25 states, multiple businesses sued the administration in late July over its new Section 301 tariffs.
The new 10% to 12.5% tariffs went into effect on July 24, as soon as a temporary global 10% tariff, imposed under Section 122 of the same law, expired. The CIT issued a narrow ruling against the use of that tariff in May, granting relief for two plaintiffs. The Section 122 tariff remained in place pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court but expired on July 23 because the law grants authority for the administration to impose it for only 150 days without an extension by Congress.
The lawsuit brought by states asks the court to immediately stay tariff collection and ultimately find the new tariffs to be illegal.
The use of Section 301 to impose tariffs is a much more straightforward legal interpretation than the administration’s use of IEEPA to impose country-by-country tariffs and a 10% global tariff, before the Supreme Court’s ruling. Typically, courts give broad deference to the executive branch over actions touching international affairs, given the broad national security and foreign policy power granted to the presidency under the Constitution.
However, the expansive new tariffs cover nearly every U.S. trade partner and are far broader than previous Section 301 levies, or than Congress may have intended when it granted that authority to the presidency.
Much of the argument will center around that question; whether the administration followed the legal process necessary to impose the tariffs, which is similar to a federal rulemaking process; and whether they are actually intended to address what the administration claims they will remedy or instead represent an attempt to re-do what was previously found to be illegal.
“The [U.S. Trade Representative] identified no link between tariff rates and the prevalence of forced labor-tainted goods by economy, did not engage or respond meaningfully to the comments and testimony that undercut USTR’s claimed rationale, established product-based exemptions inconsistent with the USTR’s own exemplars, and did not weigh the costs and benefits of the Tariff Action,” the plaintiff states argue in their lawsuit. “In short, there is no rational fit between the purported problem of forced labor in international supply chains and the blanket global tariffs the USTR imposed.”
The state lawsuit is a rematch of the Section 122 lawsuit brought earlier this year. In that case, the Trump administration successfully argued that the majority of plaintiffs did not have standing, which kept the CIT’s ruling against the Section 122 executive order narrow. The CIT granted relief from the tariff in a combined ruling only to a business plaintiff from a separate suit and the University of Washington, represented by the government of the state of Washington. However, this opened the door to more challenges to that import duty.
Aside from the tens of billions of dollars at stake in the latest lawsuits, the Trump administration also plans to impose more Section 301 tariffs this year, raising the monetary stakes even higher. How these challenges proceed could have a direct bearing on that plan.
Consolidation of IEEPA refunds
CIT Judge Richard Eaton ordered that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reliquidate IEEPA tariff payments that were finally liquidated for approximately 3,700 plaintiffs seeking refunds of duties illegally collected in 2025 and early 2026. (Liquidation is the process by which CBP makes its final computation and assessment of duties on an import’s entry to the U.S. This generally occurs within 314 days of entry.)
CBP and the administration had said they would not refund finally liquidated duties without a court order and wanted an order for each plaintiff whose past payments of IEEPA tariffs was already transmitted to the Treasury Department. Eaton’s order aims to provide that order in a mass ruling rather than adjudicating each individual case separately, to streamline that process.
Whether Eaton’s order will result in quicker refunds of finally liquidated entries remains to be seen. The Trump administration appealed the CIT’s prior refund order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with initial arguments held on Aug. 3. CBP and Eaton have generally disagreed on the IEEPA refund process, though CBP has eventually acquiesced to most of the court’s orders.
The Trump administration collected an estimated $166 billion in revenue under the IEEPA duties and owes interest in addition to refunds of the initial payments, bringing the total owed to more than $170 billion. Importers have received more than $100 billion in refunds, according to an estimate by CBP in an Aug. 4 court filing.
New polysilicon tariffs
President Donald Trump proclaimed new tariffs on polysilicon, a component used in electronic equipment and solar panels, on Aug. 6. Like other product-specific tariffs covering aluminum, steel, copper and other materials and derivative products, the new duties were ordered under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
Unlike the tariffs on those other products, the latest order includes minimum import prices for particular categories of polysilicon products, in addition to a 15% ad valorem duty on polysilicon products. The tariffs will take effect at 12:01 am on Dec. 4 at the following rates:
- $21 per kilogram for polysilicon
- $100 per kilogram for polysilicon ingots and wafers
- $0.22 per watt for solar cells
- $0.38 per watt for solar modules
The Commerce secretary also can change the minimum import prices “from time to time to reflect market conditions,” or for other factors.
The application of a minimum import price is a new tactic for this administration, and it will be worth watching to see if it applies a similar, more nuanced approach to other Section 232 tariffs still expected on industrial equipment and medical equipment.
Russia sanctions and tariffs bill advances
Legislation to expand the president’s ability to impose secondary tariffs on countries that rank among the largest purchasers of Russian oil passed the Senate before that chamber left for its August recess.
The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 86 to 11 on Aug. 7. It heads to the House of Representatives for further consideration with significant momentum to become law before the end of this Congress. It directs the president to impose a duty rate of up to 100%, stacking on top of existing tariffs, for imports from certain countries that purchase Russian oil or natural gas, or help facilitate sanctions evasion. The bill applies only to countries deemed to be the top five purchasers of those products or that facilitate sanctions-evasion aiders, within a 12-month period of passage.
In a letter to Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., prior to the Senate vote, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer committed to withdrawing tariffs on countries if they drop from the list of top five purchasers of Russian energy or sanctions evasion assistance, which is the threshold under which tariffs are authorized, Warnock had delayed consideration of the bill and previously offered an amendment, which was dropped from consideration after Greer’s letter.
China, India, Turkey, Japan and multiple EU member countries — most notably Hungary and Slovakia — are among the top importing countries of Russian oil and/or natural gas.
The president already has broad authority to sanction foreign commerce under IEEPA, a more punitive measure than tariffs that typically includes full trade embargoes and the freezing and seizure of assets.
However, the White House has pushed for tariff authority within the new legislation raising concern — including from senior Democrats on the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees but also from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. — that the bill is a back door to codifying more tariff power for the administration. An amendment offered by Paul and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to eliminate that new presidential tariff authority from the bill, failed on a 32-64 vote.
The opponents argue this could have a severe economic impact on U.S. consumers and allow the administration to legally implement other tariffs in the same quick-trigger manner it tried under IEEPA.
The bill does allow for waivers to be granted, so it is unclear exactly which imports the administration might immediately impose tariffs on if the bill does become law.
Contacts:
Content disclaimer
This content provides information and comments on current issues and developments from Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and Grant Thornton LLP. It is not a comprehensive analysis of the subject matter covered. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and Grant Thornton LLP. All relevant facts and circumstances, including the pertinent authoritative literature, need to be considered to arrive at conclusions that comply with matters addressed in this content.
For additional information on topics covered in this content, contact a Grant Thornton professional.
Grant Thornton LLP and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC (and their respective subsidiary entities) practice as an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations and professional standards. Grant Thornton LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients, and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities provide tax and business consulting services to their clients. Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms.
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton Advisors LLC’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact a Grant Thornton Advisors LLC tax professional. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact a Grant Thornton Advisors LLC tax professional prior to taking any action based upon this information.
Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton Advisors LLC assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms.
Trending topics
Share with your network
Share