Twenty-five states filed a lawsuit Monday against the Trump administration, challenging new tariffs as an illegal attempt to replace import taxes previously invalidated by the Supreme Court. The states argue the new tariffs serve as a pretext to circumvent the high court's ruling.
Last month, the administration imposed tariffs on goods from 59 countries and the European Union, citing concerns over forced labor. These new tariffs took effect as temporary measures, enacted after the Supreme Court struck down earlier tariffs in February, were set to expire.
"After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs," said New York Attorney General Letitia James. New York is joined in the lawsuit by Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
President Donald Trump has argued that high tariffs are necessary to revive American manufacturing. In the past year, he reversed decades of U.S. trade policy, which had favored lower tariffs and freer trade. Citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, Trump imposed double-digit tariffs on imports from nearly all countries, asserting that the nation's trade deficit constituted a national emergency.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the IEEPA did not grant authorization for such tariffs, compelling the administration to issue refunds to importers. To recoup lost revenue, the administration then implemented temporary 10% tariffs applied globally, which expired on July 24.
The current tariffs are being imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This section allows the president to enact import taxes and other sanctions against countries engaging in unfair trade practices. The administration previously utilized Section 301 to impose tariffs on China during Trump's first term, which survived legal challenges.
Administration officials defended the tariffs, stating they are a lawful means to address unfair trade practices. "A foreign country’s failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens U.S. commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed," White House spokesman Kush Desai said. "Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally durable tool since the President’s first term, and they remain so now."
The lawsuit by the 25 states follows two earlier challenges filed in the Court of International Trade by small businesses. These businesses also contested the Section 301 tariffs, arguing that the government failed to adequately justify its case against specific economies or explain how the tariffs would eliminate the targeted practices, as required by the law.
Legal experts note that the administration's use of Section 301, after previously attempting to impose similar global tariffs under different statutes, could present legal hurdles. Unlike previous attempts, Section 301 has a history of presidential use, with established legal frameworks involving investigation and public record. The defense in this case is expected to hinge on whether the administration adhered to the established procedures within Section 301.