Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 11 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Silicon Valley

Washington, D.C.

On February 20, 2026, lead counsel for the plaintiff group in the test case for the China Section 301 tariff refund litigation (HMTX Industries LLC, et al.&nbsp; v. United States et al.), filed a <a href="https://filehost.thompsonhine.com/uploads/China_Section_301__Petition_for_a_Writ_of_Certiorari_to_USSC_b888.pdf">Petition for a Writ of Certiorari</a> with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision sustaining the China Section 301 tariffs under the Trade Act of 1974.&nbsp; See Thompson Hine Update of <a href="https://www.thompsonhinesmartrade.com/2025/09/federal-circuit-upholds-cit-decision-supporting-china-section-301-lists-3-and-4a-tariffs/">September 25, 2026</a>, detailing the CAFC decision and holding that that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has the authority to modify its original Section 301 trade action by imposing and modifying tariffs with the addition of the List 3 and List 4A at a later date.&nbsp;Lead counsel for the plaintiff group has requested that the U.S. Supreme Court accept review of this decision and consider whether the USTR has &ldquo;streamlined authority ... to &lsquo;modify&rsquo; an existing tariff&rdquo; and allow &ldquo;the agency essentially unlimited power to expand the scope of that initial action.&rdquo;&nbsp;
Notably, the submission was filed on the same day that (1) the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling invalidating the Trump administration&rsquo;s use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs and (2) the USTR announced that it would turn again to Section 301 to impose tariffs to address unjustifiable, unreasonable, discriminatory, and burdensome acts, policies, and practices by many trading partners. &nbsp;Indeed, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari states, &ldquo;The need for immediate review is only underscored by this Administration&rsquo;s repeated statements that it plans to rely more heavily on Section 301 ...&nbsp; if this Court holds ... that the President does not have the sweeping tariff power he claims under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.&rdquo;&nbsp; With the IEEPA tariffs invalidated, counsel asserts that the issues surrounding interpretation of Section 301 will &ldquo;become a (quickly) recurring one.&nbsp; This Court need not wait to step in.&rdquo;

core/freeform

SmarTrade

Senior Legislative and Regulatory Policy Advisor

Scott E. Diamond

Partner

David M. Schwartz

Samir D. Varma

Associate

Aaron C. Mandelbaum

International Trade

Plaintiffs in China Section 301 Tariff Litigation File Petition with U.S. Supreme Court Seeking Review of Federal Circuit Decision