A coalition of 25 Democratic-led states has filed a new lawsuit seeking to stop President Donald Trump's latest round of tariffs, arguing the administration is attempting to revive a trade policy that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled unlawful.
The lawsuit, filed this week in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, challenges tariffs imposed on imports from 60 trading partners, including the European Union, claiming the president exceeded his legal authority and improperly used a decades-old trade law to impose broad import taxes.
The case marks the latest chapter in an escalating legal battle over Trump's aggressive trade agenda, which has faced repeated challenges from businesses, states and federal courts.
States argue tariffs violate constitutional limits
The lawsuit was brought by attorneys general from 25 Democratic-led states, who contend that Congress, not the president, has the constitutional authority to impose taxes and tariffs.
According to the complaint, the administration is using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a pretext to restore sweeping tariffs after the Supreme Court earlier this year struck down many of Trump's previous import duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the lead plaintiffs, argued the administration is attempting to circumvent the high court's ruling by relying on a different legal justification while pursuing substantially the same policy.
The states are asking the court to declare the tariffs unlawful, block their enforcement and order refunds for duties already collected.
The challenged tariffs took effect on July 24 and impose duties of 10% and 12.5% on imports from 60 countries and trading blocs, including the European Union.
The Trump administration says the measures are intended to pressure foreign governments to do more to eliminate forced labor from global supply chains. Officials argue the tariffs are authorized under Section 301, which allows the United States to respond to unfair foreign trade practices.
Administration lawyers maintain the new tariffs differ legally from those previously invalidated because they rely on trade law rather than emergency powers.
Legal fight follows Supreme Court defeat
The latest lawsuit comes months after the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize presidents to impose broad global tariffs, dealing a major setback to Trump's earlier trade strategy.
Since that decision, the administration has repeatedly modified its legal approach while continuing to pursue higher tariffs on imported goods.
Small businesses also filed a separate lawsuit when the new tariffs took effect, arguing the administration failed to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to invoke Section 301 for such sweeping duties.
The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for U.S. trade policy and global markets.
The challenged tariffs affect nearly all major U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, China, the United Kingdom and the European Union. Importers argue the duties increase costs for American businesses and consumers, while supporters say they are necessary to combat unfair trade practices and forced labor overseas.
Legal experts note that Section 301 has historically provided presidents with broader authority than the emergency powers statute rejected by the Supreme Court, meaning the administration may face a stronger legal defense in this latest case. Even so, the plaintiffs argue the government failed to follow the investigative procedures required under the law before imposing the tariffs.
The Court of International Trade is expected to consider whether the administration's latest tariff strategy complies with federal trade law and constitutional limits on presidential authority, a decision that could shape the future of Trump's trade agenda
