Three former top United States trade officials are speaking out against President Donald Trump’s recent tariff scheme and saying that the administration’s duties on dozens of American trading partners are, in essence, illegal.

A “friend of the court” brief filed in the New York-based Court of International Trade (CIT) in support of plaintiffs suing the federal government detailed the reasoning of the three erstwhile trade officials who served across multiple administrations. Their direct involvement in the creation of Section 301 and the Trade Act of 1974—as well as their role in applying it in the modern era—gave them the ability to provide the court with “unique insight into the statute’s origins, purpose, and historical application,” they wrote.

Ambassador Alan Wm. Wolff played a central role in creating Section 301 as the lead international trade lawyer at the U.S. Treasury Department and later Deputy General Counsel and General Counsel of the Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations in President Jimmy Carter’s administration. Wolff originated the proposal that became Section 301 and was the lead draftsman of the Trade Act of 1974.

Meanwhile, Ambassador Carla A. Hills served as USTR Ambassador from 1989 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush and oversaw the application of Section 301 during her tenure. Warren H. Maruyama, former USTR General Counsel, was responsible for molding and implementing trade policy across administrations and was involved in significant Section 301 trade actions.

According to the amici curiae brief, the president has overstepped the specific powers bestowed by Congress to take action against foreign acts and policies that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. The brief’s authors took issue with the executive branch’s “attempt to transform that targeted authority into a sweeping power to impose broad, economy-wide tariffs untethered from the statute Congress enacted.”

As indicated by the text of Section 301, Congress intended that the provision provide the ability to address specific actions or practices perpetuated by foreign actors through “a meaningful investigation” substantiated by concrete findings of damages to U.S. commerce.

“Nothing in the statute authorizes USTR to aggregate dozens of separate investigations… in order to justify tariffs of unprecedented breadth against multiple countries,” the brief said. “Such an approach finds no support in the statutory text, legislative history, or the consistent practice under Section 301 during the more than fifty years since its enactment.”

USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer launched two separate Section 301 investigations into U.S. trade partners in March, following the Trump administration’s crushing loss in the Supreme Court one month prior. The high court declared the president’s preeminent tariff scheme, levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act on “Liberation Day” in April 2025, to be illegal.

Since then, the USTR has levied other tools, including Section 301, in a transparent bid to reconstitute those duties. Greer launched an investigation into 60 global economies on the allegation that they failed to impose or enact effective safeguards against the importation of goods made with forced labor, and in July, tariffs on goods from those countries were imposed, ranging from 10-12.5 percent.

A separate Section investigation into 16 economies was launched around the same time over allegations that they maintain excess industrial capacity, or the ability to create too high a volume of goods for their existing domestic or export markets. This, the USTR said, undermines U.S. competitiveness.

The results of the second investigation, and the potential associated tariffs, have not yet been announced, though many believe new duties are imminent.

According to the former trade officials who wrote the brief to the CIT, however, the trade statute was never intended to be leveraged this way.

“The Trade Act of 1974 was the product of intense congressional scrutiny, particularly regarding the extent to which trade authority could be delegated to the Executive,” they wrote. “Throughout the Act, Congress imposed clear substantive and procedural limits on each tariff authority it delegates to the President.”

Congress maintains the authority to impose taxes, they added, and tariffs fall under that authority. The legislative brand did not confer “unlimited tariff power” through Section 301 to the president, they argued.

The law as it stands “vests tariff authority in Congress, and delegations of that authority have historically been specific and constrained,” they added. “By asserting an effectively boundless Section 301 authority through the aggregation of numerous investigations, USTR exceeds the limits established by Congress and upsets the constitutional allocation of trade powers.”

Because the administration undermined the statute and perverted its intent, the writers urged the CIT to determine that the Section 301 forced labor duties go beyond statutory authority “and are therefore invalid.” Importers should be entitled to refunds on any duties collected—with applicable interest, they wrote.