The court will choose one suit based on claim coverage and expects to stay the others. With non-sample plaintiffs limited to a narrow amicus role, counsel need a case-by-claim crosswalk before the opening brief.
Primary lensTariff authority
Sub-topicForced-labor action
Evidence base6 records used
Use caseAuthority exposure review
September 30 is now the hearing date in the forced-labor tariff cases. The next important filing is due much sooner.
By August 17, the parties must identify a proposed sample case and proposed members of a plaintiffs' steering committee. The three-judge panel intends to proceed first on one suit with consolidated briefing and anticipates staying the cases it does not select. The U.S. Court of International Trade Standard Procedural and Scheduling Order No. 26-01 (Aug. 13, 2026) says the sample will take into account the claims in each complaint, claims that rise or fall with another claim, and the government's expected defenses.
Counsel therefore need a case-by-claim crosswalk. For each count, it should show whether the proposed sample includes it, whether another included count decides it, or whether the parties need to propose a separate route. The court did not order the parties to file that crosswalk. They need it to test the sample before the 20,000-word opening brief is due.
The court chose a claims test, not a first-filed rule
The master case is In Re Section 301 Forced Labor Cases, Court No. 26-cv-03555-3JP. It currently covers Burlap and Barrel, Learning Resources, and the state coalition led by Oregon. A filing under the master caption will be treated as filed in the individual actions to the extent it applies. A paper that concerns only one case stays in that case.
The order does not give the first-filed complaint priority. It asks which case can account for the claims already raised, any claim that can be resolved through another included claim, and the defenses the government plans to assert. The court expects the selected case to permit efficient disposition while allowing consideration of all claims.
No claim has been omitted or lost at this stage. The differences identify what the August 17 proposal should address.
Why this is new
The CIT used similar procedures in the earlier China Section 301 litigation. It created a master case, chose HMTX as the sample, stayed other actions, and appointed a steering committee. CIT Slip Opinion 22-32 describes about 3,600 cases.
This time, only three cases are on the schedule, yet the court expressly made claim diversity part of the sample-case test. Procedures built to coordinate thousands of related filings must now reconcile differences among three complaints. The selection filing should show how the proposed sample covers those differences without assuming that all APA theories or all plaintiffs are interchangeable.
The comparison stops there. HMTX does not predict the merits or remedy in these cases. The USTR final action in 91 FR 47318 arose from a different investigation and established separate tariff actions for 60 economies.
The amicus brief cannot fix every difference
The court anticipates issuing a stay in each case not selected as the sample. Plaintiffs in those cases may participate as amici, but an amicus brief must be limited to claims in the selected case and cannot repeat the parties' arguments. The schedule gives supporting amici 5,000 words. The plaintiffs' Rule 56.1 opening gets 20,000.
The order says the court intends to consider all claims. It does not make the amicus filing an unrestricted supplement. If the proposed sample does not plead a count found in another complaint, the proposal should explain whether an included count resolves it or whether another procedure is needed.
The committee selection calls for the same practical check. The order tells the committee to coordinate case-management proposals and consolidated submissions, and it asks for a group small enough to work efficiently but large enough to represent diverse viewpoints. As an inference, counsel membership should be tested against the complaints and defenses that need an owner.
What counsel should do
Use one row for every count, not one row for each broad label such as APA. At the August 14 cutoff, the sample has not been chosen, so the table records the known complaints and leaves the selection fields open.
Case
Count and distinct point
In proposed sample?
Dependency analysis
Opening section and owner
Proposed route if not carried
26-03345 Burlap
I: exceeds Section 301 authority
Open
Identify any count that would also decide it
Assign section and counsel
Explain separate treatment, if any
26-03345 Burlap
II: arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law
Open
Map each challenged agency choice
Assign section and record owner
Explain separate treatment, if any
26-03345 Burlap
III: nondelegation
Open
State whether it depends on Count I
Assign section and counsel
Explain separate treatment, if any
26-03347 Learning
I: no statutory authority
Open
Compare with Burlap Count I
Assign section and counsel
Explain separate treatment, if any
26-03347 Learning
II: APA and substantial evidence
Open
Identify any proof not covered elsewhere
Assign section and record owner
Explain separate treatment, if any
26-03347 Learning
III: nondelegation
Open
Compare with Burlap Count III
Assign section and counsel
Explain separate treatment, if any
26-03467 States
I: excess authority, contrary to law, and Section 303 consultation
Open
Separate consultation from common authority issues
Assign section and counsel
Explain separate treatment, if any
26-03467 States
II: arbitrary and capricious action
Open
Map state-specific allegations and common record issues
Assign section and record owner
Explain separate treatment, if any
26-03467 States
III: ultra vires action
Open
State whether another authority count decides it
Assign section and counsel
Explain separate treatment, if any
Add the complaint paragraph, requested relief, supporting record cite, and affected plaintiff to each row in the working file. A yes in the sample column is incomplete without the brief section and named owner. If a row is treated as dependent, identify the included claim that would decide it and the legal reason for that dependency.
The schedule leaves little room to find a gap
Seven calendar days separate the August 17 proposal deadline from the August 24 opening brief. The order sets no separate deadline for the court to select the sample, so the drafting interval could be shorter.
The government also files a master answer on August 24. That answer will address pending and later assigned complaints in a generic manner rather than cross-referencing every paragraph or count. Its consolidated response is due September 4. Amici file on September 11, the plaintiffs reply on September 18, the joint appendix is due September 21, and oral argument is set for September 30 at 10:00 a.m. in the CIT Ceremonial Courtroom.
Counsel should assign each complaint count, record issue, and expected defense before the sample proposal is filed. The Rule 56.1 brief will show whether that assignment survived the word limit.
Caveats
The order answers the status question in Traverse's August 4 docket analysis: the case-management procedures and dates are now entered, not proposed. It does not decide the tariffs or set a decision deadline.
Sample selection does not itself certify a class or define entry-level relief. Those questions remain separate, as Traverse's state refund boundary analysis and country-level severability analysis explain. The present question is limited to which claims the sample case and opening brief will place before the panel.
What would change the calculus
The first new record is the August 17 proposal identifying the sample and steering committee. A later court order selecting the sample, appointing counsel, or staying other cases will control over that proposal.
The August 24 Rule 56.1 brief will show which counts and record theories the plaintiffs actually present. The government's master answer and September 4 response will identify defenses. Any September 11 amicus briefs will show which issues the non-sample plaintiffs believe still need separate treatment.
The table also changes if another complaint joins the master case, the court authorizes another sample, USTR modifies an action, or a later order changes the requested relief. Until one of those records arrives, the August 17 question is specific: which proposed sample accounts for all nine counts, and how?
Free account
Keep reading with a free account.
Today's analysis is open to everyone. A free account opens the full archive and full tool output. No card required.