25 States Sue Trump Over New Tariffs in Legal Showdown

Twenty-five states filed a lawsuit Monday against the Trump administration over its latest round of tariffs, calling the new duties a “pretext” for replacing import taxes the Supreme Court struck down in February. The legal challenge, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, argues that the administration exceeded its presidential authority and asks the court to halt the tariffs, declare them unlawful, and order refunds of duties already paid.

The lawsuit targets tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% imposed last month on 59 countries and the European Union, which the administration says are designed to crack down on imports produced by forced labor. The new duties, which affect countries that provide 99% of American imports, took effect just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expired at midnight on July 24.

A Third Legal Battle Over Tariffs

This lawsuit marks the third major legal challenge to the Trump administration’s tariff policies. The legal saga began in early 2025, when President Donald Trump invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose double-digit tariffs on imports from almost every country, arguing that America’s longstanding trade deficit amounted to a national emergency.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in February that IEEPA did not authorize tariffs, forcing the administration to send refunds to importers who had paid an estimated $175 billion in IEEPA tariffs. As Orrick noted in its legal analysis, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, affirming that the statute does not grant the president tariff powers.

Eager to make up the lost revenue, Trump turned to temporary 10% worldwide tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act, which only authorizes tariffs for 150 days. Those tariffs were also ruled illegal by the U.S. Court of International Trade but remained in effect during appeal. They expired at midnight on July 24.

Now, the administration has invoked Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits the president to impose import taxes against countries found to engage in unfair trade practices. Trump used Section 301 to impose big tariffs on China in his first term, and they survived court challenges.

The States’ Argument: A ‘Pretext’ for Sweeping Tariffs

The states argue that the administration is using “forced labor” as an excuse to continue its policy of indiscriminately enacting damaging tariffs. According to the NY Attorney General’s office, the administration violated Section 301’s requirements by failing to conduct a meaningful investigation, not engaging substantively with testimony and comments submitted, and arbitrarily applying across-the-board tariffs to a sweeping range of countries and products.

“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. “No matter how the administration tries to justify it, the law and our Constitution are clear that the president does not have the power to impose sweeping tariffs on whatever countries he wants.”

New York Governor Kathy Hochul echoed those concerns: “President Trump’s illegal tariffs are nothing more than a tax on hardworking families, driving up the cost of groceries, household essentials, building materials, and countless everyday goods that New Yorkers rely on.”

Joining New York in the lawsuit are 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. As The Guardian reported, all states involved have Democratic attorneys general or governors, with Kentucky and Pennsylvania represented by their governors rather than attorneys general.

Procedural Shortcuts and Contradictions

The lawsuit details several specific problems with the administration’s approach. Investigations into single countries under Section 301 are complex and typically take up to a year to complete. Yet the administration claims to have investigated the policies and economies of 60 trading partners in less than three months.

The tariffs also contain product exemptions that undermine their stated goal. The administration’s report identified just three products made with forced labor to justify tariffs on dozens of countries, yet one of these—frozen beef from Brazil—is exempted from the tariffs. Countries with and without mechanisms to prevent forced labor are treated similarly, and the tariffs apply equally to raw materials and finished goods.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who filed the lawsuit, said: “Despite losing every step of the way, Trump is trying yet again to inflict more chaos on working families and homegrown Oregon businesses.”

The timing of the tariffs “confirms that the tariff action is pretextual, arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to Section 301’s statutorily constrained purpose,” according to the court filing.

White House Defends Tariffs

White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended the tariffs, saying: “The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce. 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.”

The lawsuit follows two other legal challenges filed in the Court of International Trade in July by small businesses that also contested the 301 tariffs. Jeffrey Schwab, director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, which filed one of those suits, said: “This is the third time the administration has attempted to impose its global tariff policy without following the statutory limits.” He added that Section 301 “is not a freestanding authorization to tax substantially all imports from substantially all countries at preestablished rates.”

Legal Experts Weigh In

Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, said the challenges stem from the fact that the 301 tariffs are the third time the administration has tried to impose similar worldwide tariffs under different statutes, and their “nearly copy-pasted” nature could pose a challenge to defend in court.

However, Appleton noted that Section 301 has been used before and survived legal challenges. “Presidents have used it for decades, and Congress built it with real guardrails: investigation, consultation, a public record,” he said. “The government’s defense won’t be ‘I had no power to do this.’ It will be, ‘I stayed inside the lines Congress drew.’ That is a real fight, not a formality, and it is the one that will decide this case.”

International Reactions

The tariffs have drawn sharp criticism from major trading partners. The European Union said it “fully rejects the notion that the EU could be considered as contributing to the global problem of forced labor.” Brazil accused the USTR of manipulating “an issue of great importance to human rights” to justify its “protectionist trade policy.” Japan called the new duties “regrettable,” and Canada has protested its inclusion, arguing it has significant safeguards to keep forced labor products out of its supply chains.

What’s Next

The case now moves forward in the U.S. Court of International Trade, where the states are seeking a court order declaring the tariffs illegal. The outcome could have significant implications for U.S. trade policy and the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress on tariff authority.

As Al Jazeera reported, the states’ complaint argues that a sweeping tax on imports would do nothing to address the real problems of forced labor around the world. The legal battle over the administration’s tariff policies is far from over, and this latest challenge will test whether Section 301 can withstand scrutiny when applied at such unprecedented scale.