Twenty-five states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the legality of recently imposed tariffs. The states contend that the new tariffs, enacted after the Supreme Court invalidated previous import taxes, are a pretext to circumvent the high court's decision.
The lawsuit, announced Monday, names New York Attorney General Letitia James as a lead plaintiff. Other participating states include 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.
In February, the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) did not authorize the administration to impose tariffs. This decision compelled the administration to issue refunds to importers who had paid those tariffs. Following this setback, the administration implemented temporary 10% worldwide tariffs, which expired on July 24.
The latest tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, were imposed last month on 59 countries and the European Union. The administration cited the failure of these countries to adequately crack down on imports produced by forced labor as the justification. These new tariffs were enacted under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that allows the president to impose import taxes and sanctions against countries engaging in unfair trade practices. This section was previously used by the Trump administration to impose tariffs on China, which survived legal challenges.
"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," stated New York Attorney General Letitia James. The coalition of states argues that the administration's new justification for the tariffs is merely a "pretext" to substitute the invalidated ones.
The lawsuit follows two other legal challenges filed in July by small businesses that also questioned the Section 301 tariffs. Those businesses argued that the government had not sufficiently established its case against individual economies or detailed how the tariffs would specifically eliminate the practices they were levied for, as required by Section 301.
A White House spokesman, Kush Desai, defended the administration's actions, stating, "The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce."
Desai added, "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. Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally durable tool since the President’s first term, and they remain so now."