Supreme Court Declines to Review HMTX Challenge to Section 301 Tariffs

Tweet

Jun. 16, 2026
By: Ashley J. Bodden

On June 15, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in HMTX Industries, LLC v. United States, bringing a close to the legal challenge of the Section 301 tariffs imposed on imports from China. The Court's decision leaves intact the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's 2025 ruling upholding the authority of the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to impose the List 3 and List 4A tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The litigation stemmed from USTR's response to China's retaliatory measures following the original Section 301 investigation into China's technology transfer and intellectual property practices. After imposing tariffs on approximately $50 billion of imports under Lists 1 and 2, USTR added Lists 3 and 4A following China's retaliatory actions. HMTX Industries and other importers challenged the expansion, arguing that Section 307 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorized only limited modifications to an existing Section 301 action and did not permit the addition of tariffs covering hundreds of billions of dollars in imports.

Both the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected those arguments. The Federal Circuit concluded that USTR acted within its authority when it modified the original tariff action in response to China's retaliatory measures, finding that the increased burden on U.S. commerce justified the expansion of the tariffs.

By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court leaves the Federal Circuit's decision intact. Although a denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits and does not signify approval of the lower court's reasoning, it effectively ends the plaintiffs' challenge and preserves the legal foundation of the List 3 and List 4A tariffs.

So, what does this mean? Absent congressional action or future administration remedy, importers should not expect refunds of duties paid under the challenged tariff lists.

The timing of the Court’s decision is noteworthy, as the federal courts continue to grapple with the challenges involving presidential tariff actions under other statutes, such as International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Section 122. Therefore, future litigation may focus more on alternative tariff authorities rather than Section 301.

If you have questions about Section 301 tariffs, including litigation, do not hesitate to contact an attorney at Barnes Richardson, & Colburn LLP.