On June 15, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of HMTX Industries LLC v. United States. The petition came in response to the Federal Circuit’s decision to uphold use of tariffs against China under Lists 3 and 4A of Section 301 during the first Trump Administration.

History of Section 301

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 granted the President the ability to suspend trade concessions and impose import restrictions (including duties) in order to address trading partners’ “unjustifiable” import restrictions and their impacts on U.S. commerce.[1] Title III of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”) expanded these powers, allowing the President to retaliate against restrictions that are “unjustifiable or unreasonable.”[2] Subsequent amendments to the 1974 Act set investigation and retaliatory action timetables and shifted the retaliatory to the United States Trade Representative (USTR).[3]

From the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 until the beginning of the first Trump Administration, the U.S. had used Section 301 primarily in the WTO dispute settlement process.[4] Since then, use of Section 301 has grown more unilateral and punitive in nature, with the Trump Administration citing inadequacies in the WTO dispute settlement process (especially in response to particular Chinese trade practices) and failure of past trade agreements to improve U.S. firms’ market access.[5]

Procedural History of the Case

In response to President Trump’s 2017 directive to USTR to investigate “any of China’s laws, policies, practices, or actions that may be unreasonable or discriminatory and that may be harming American intellectual property rights, innovation, or technology development,” USTR issued List 1 and List 2 tariffs of 25% on over $50 billion of Chinese goods.[6] Following Chinese retaliation, USTR then modified its discretionary action by invoking Section 307 to impose additional List 3 and List 4A duties on over $300 billion in Chinese imports.[7] HMTX filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in September 2020, where CIT found that Section 307(a)(1)(B) authorized USTR’s modification to the original Section 301 action.[8] In September 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed CIT’s decision, finding that Section 307(a)(1)(C) authorized the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs and that USTR cured prior procedural violations of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Denial of Certiorari

The U.S. Supreme Court denied HTMX’s petition for a writ of certiorari without comment on June 15, 2026 (No. 25-1012).[9]

What it Means for Importers

Following the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari, the Section 301 List 3 and List 4A tariffs remain valid; importers who paid those duties are not entitled to refunds. Denial of certiorari does not speak to the case’s merits (whereas, for example, the Court ruled on the Learning Resources IEEPA tariffs case). However, the denial in this case renders the Federal Circuit’s judgment final.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46604 (page 2)

[2] Id. at 3.

[3] Id. at 4.

[4] Id. at 1.

[5] Id.

[6] Addressing China’s Laws, Policies, Practices, and Actions Related to Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Technology, 82 Fed. Reg. 39,007, 39,007 (Aug. 17, 2017). chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1891.OPINION.9-25-2025_2578632.pdf ; at 7-8.

[7] chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1891.OPINION.9-25-2025_2578632.pdf; at 2-3.

[8] Id. at 14.

[9] https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1012.html