25 US states sue Trump over tariffs

When half the states unite against their own president in court, it is no longer just a trade dispute — it is a constitutional crisis in action. The Trump administration is trying for the third time to bypass Supreme Court rulings, each time finding a new legislative loophole, and each time the courts push back.

The issue is no longer how high the tariffs are, but whether the president has the right to impose them on such a scale without explicit congressional approval. States from New York to California argue that this is not just trade policy but a direct violation of the separation of powers, and the price of this violation is higher prices for millions of American families.

A coalition of 25 US states — exactly half of the 50 states — filed a lawsuit on Monday against the Trump administration, arguing that President Donald Trump exceeded his lawful authority by imposing sweeping new tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners, according to court documents. The lawsuit, filed with the US Court of International Trade, challenges the newly imposed tariffs of 10 or 12.5 percent on the vast majority of goods imported from the affected countries.

According to the states, these countries collectively account for 99.4 percent of US imports. The US Trade Representative's office (USTR) announced the tariffs on 23 July, citing Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The new measures took effect the following day, just as the previous temporary 10 percent global tariffs expired.

"This court has twice struck down these attempts, ruling that neither the International Emergency Economic Powers Act nor Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 provided a lawful basis for the president's trade policy. The administration's third attempt to impose global tariffs — now under Section 301 of the Trade Act — is also unlawful," the states' lawsuit says. The coalition asks the court to block the tariffs, declare them illegal and order the refund of duties already paid.

The legal challenge focuses on the administration's attempt to preserve Trump's broad tariff regime after federal courts struck down two earlier versions enacted under different legislative frameworks. The states argue that federal officials used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and (so called) concerns about "forced labour" merely as a pretext to quickly recreate nearly identical global tariffs that the Supreme Court had previously struck down in February.

"President Trump's illegal tariffs are nothing more than a tax on hardworking families, raising prices on food, essential goods, construction materials and countless everyday items that New Yorkers depend on," said New York Governor Kathy Hochul in a statement. "The Supreme Court made it clear that this administration cannot ignore the law and impose sweeping tariffs," she added. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield echoed the sentiment: "Today we are filing our third lawsuit against Trump's illegal tariffs.

The president is again raising prices on everyday goods for Oregon families and small businesses, and we are again leading a multi state coalition to push back." New York Attorney General Letitia James said: "After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs." The White House dismissed the coalition's arguments, saying that tariffs imposed under Section 301 had proven their "legal durability" since Trump's first term and remain so under the current administration.

Joining New York in the lawsuit announced on Monday 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 is at least the second major legal challenge to the new tariffs; earlier, a group of small businesses filed a similar suit.

However, the plaintiffs may find it harder to win, as Section 301 has previously been used to impose tariffs. "Unlike previous cases, the outcome of this case will depend on how much courts defer to the administration's seemingly contrived justification that the tariffs are aimed at combating forced labour," said Matthew Seligman of Grayhawk Law. Professor Barry Appleton of New York Law School believes the government's defence will rest not on a lack of authority but on the claim that it acted within the bounds set by Congress. In February, the Supreme Court already ruled that sweeping tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unconstitutional.

As CCTV+ reports, this lawsuit is the latest episode in a long running battle between the executive and judicial branches, and its outcome could determine not only the fate of the tariffs but also the limits of presidential power in trade policy for years to come.