Twenty-five states filed suit against the Trump administration Monday, challenging new tariffs imposed on 59 countries and the European Union that officials say aim to combat forced labor imports. The lawsuit marks the latest legal battle over the administration's trade policy following a Supreme Court defeat earlier this year.
New York Attorney General Letitia James led the coalition, claiming the tariffs represent an illegal tax increase on families and businesses. "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," she said.
The Legal Challenge
The states argue the new tariffs exceed presidential authority and serve as a workaround for import taxes the Supreme Court struck down in February. That ruling forced the administration to issue refunds to importers who'd already paid under the previous tariff regime.
Joining New York 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. The lawsuit follows two earlier challenges filed in July by small businesses at The Court of International Trade.
The administration imposed the double-digit tariffs last month under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits import taxes against countries engaged in unfair trade practices. The tariffs range from 10% to 12.5% and affect countries providing 99% of American imports. They took effect just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expired on July 24.
Administration's Defense
White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the move as lawful authority to eliminate 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," Desai said. "Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally durable tool since the President's first term, and they remain so now."
Trump used Section 301 during his first term to impose tariffs on China, which survived court challenges. He argues high tariffs will revive American manufacturing, overturning decades of U.S. policy favoring lower tariffs and freer trade.
Last year, Trump invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose double-digit tariffs on imports from almost every country, citing America's trade deficit as a national emergency. But the Supreme Court ruled IEEPA didn't authorize tariffs.
Legal Precedent at Stake
Both July lawsuits argue the government didn't adequately establish its case against each specific economy or explain how the tariffs will eliminate the practices they're meant to address, as Section 301 requires.
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School's Center for International Law, said the challenges stem from the tariffs being the third attempt to impose similar worldwide tariffs under different statutes. Their "nearly copy-pasted" nature could pose defense challenges in court, he noted.
Appleton distinguished Section 301 from previous statutes as an established tool with precedent. "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."
Why This Matters:
This legal battle will determine whether the executive branch can use established trade law to protect American workers from unfair foreign competition, or whether states can block federal trade policy through litigation. The outcome affects revenue collection that helps fund government operations after the Supreme Court forced tariff refunds earlier this year. Section 301's track record—particularly its survival during the first Trump administration's China tariffs—suggests the administration stands on firmer legal ground than previous attempts. But the scope of these tariffs, covering 99% of imports, tests whether Congress intended such broad application. The case could define presidential trade authority for years, affecting how future administrations balance free trade principles against protecting domestic manufacturing and combating practices like forced labor that undercut American businesses.