Twenty-five states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the recent imposition of tariffs. The states contend these tariffs serve as a pretext to replace tariffs that were previously struck down by the Supreme Court in February.
Last month, the United States enforced double-digit tariffs affecting 59 countries and the European Union, citing insufficient measures against imports tied to forced labor. These tariffs coincided with the expiration of temporary tariffs initiated by President Donald Trump following the Supreme Court setback.
New York Attorney General Letitia James stated, “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.” States such as Arizona, California, and others have joined New York in the lawsuit.
Previously, Trump reversed decades of U.S. policy favoring lower tariffs and freer trade by enforcing tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court disagreed with this action, stating IEEPA did not authorize tariffs, thus leading to refunds to importers.
Following the expiration of temporary tariffs, Trump has now reverted to Section 301 under the Trade Act of 1974, allowing tariffs against countries with unfair trade practices. Using Section 301, Trump applied significant tariffs on China during his first term, which survived court challenges.
The forced-labor tariffs range from 10% to 12.5%, imposing taxes on countries responsible for 99% of American imports. White House spokesman Kush Desai remarked, “The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce.”
Additional lawsuits filed by small businesses in The Court of International Trade claim the government has not sufficiently established cases against specific economies or explained how the tariffs will address the intended practices as required by Section 301.
Barry Appleton, law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, noted that the 301 tariffs are the third attempt by the administration to impose similar tariffs, raising concerns about defending them in court.
Section 301 has a history of usage, even surviving legal challenges previously, providing the administration a robust defense backed by congressional “guardrails” for investigation and consultation. According to Appleton, the key argument will be around staying within congressional boundaries rather than lacking authority.