Consumer Watchdog Files New Supreme Court Brief Challenging Unlawful Tariff "Modifications" That Raise Prices For Working Families

Organization Urges Court to Grant Review of Federal Circuit Decision Allowing Sevenfold Expansion of Section 301 China Tariffs with No Meaningful Limits

LOS ANGELES, March 26, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Consumer Watchdog today filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in HMTX Industries, LLP v. United States, No. 25-1012, urging the Court to grant review of a Federal Circuit decision that allowed the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to expand existing tariffs on Chinese imports by a factor of seven — with no meaningful statutory limits and no procedural safeguards. The brief was authored by Alan B. Morrison, Adjunct Professor at George Washington University Law School and one of the nation's foremost Supreme Court litigators and constitutional law scholars.

The new brief follows Consumer Watchdog's successful amicus filing in Learning Resources, LLP v. Trump, in which the Supreme Court on February 20, 2026 struck down President Trump's sweeping "emergency" tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), holding that the statute did not authorize the President to impose tariffs.

While the Learning Resources case addressed whether IEEPA permitted the imposition of tariffs at all, the HMTX case raises a distinct but related question: even where a statute does authorize tariffs, how far may an agency go in "modifying" them without any statutory ceiling or proportionality requirement? Consumer Watchdog argues that the Federal Circuit's answer — that USTR may increase tariffs to any level it deems "appropriate" — is legally and constitutionally untenable.

At issue are tariffs originally imposed on $50 billion in Chinese imports under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which USTR described as "commensurate" with the harm caused by China's trade practices. After China retaliated, USTR invoked Section 307 of the same statute to expand the tariffs to cover $350 billion in additional imports — a sevenfold increase — while bypassing all of the procedural requirements that governed the original tariffs.

Consumer Watchdog's brief makes two principal arguments. First, it explains that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Learning Resources applies with equal force here: just as the Court declined to read IEEPA as conferring unbounded tariff authority on the President, Section 307 should not be read to give USTR limitless discretion to "modify" tariffs to any level it chooses. Second, the brief argues that if Section 307 is interpreted as the Federal Circuit held, it raises serious constitutional concerns under the nondelegation doctrine, as recently elaborated by the Supreme Court in FCC v. Consumers' Research, 145 S. Ct. 2482 (2025).

"Tariffs are a tax, a tax increase that hits working families and small businesses hardest," said William Pletcher, Litigation Director of Consumer Watchdog. "The Federal Circuit's ruling gives USTR a blank check — with no cap on rate, no cap on scope, no procedures, and no meaningful judicial review. The Supreme Court should step in."

Consumer Watchdog's brief argues that Section 307 can and should be read to require that any modification of existing tariffs remain proportionate to the harm caused by a foreign country's retaliatory actions — the same "commensurate" standard that governed the original tariffs. That reading, the brief contends, would resolve the case on statutory grounds and avoid the serious constitutional questions raised by the Federal Circuit's interpretation.

"The Supreme Court just made clear in Learning Resources that the President cannot impose unlimited tariffs by executive fiat," said Ben Powell, attorney at Consumer Watchdog. "The question in this case is whether USTR can do the same thing through the back door by calling it a 'modification.' The answer should be no."

"USTR has already announced new Section 301 investigations targeting sixteen major U.S. trading partners, including the European Union, Japan, Mexico, and India," said Ryan Mellino, attorney at Consumer Watchdog. "The legal question in this case — how far USTR can go in 'modifying' tariffs without statutory limits — is not going away, and the Court needs to resolve it."

This case is one of more than 4,200 cases filed in the Court of International Trade raising the same issue. The challenged tariffs remain in effect today.

About Consumer Watchdog

Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest organization dedicated to protecting consumers from unfair business practices and unlawful government action. The organization frequently appears before state and federal courts to defend consumer rights and constitutional accountability. For more information, visit consumerwatchdog.org.

SOURCE Consumer Watchdog