Listen to the article
Two dozen states have filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s recently imposed global tariffs, arguing that the president has overstepped his authority by implementing 15% import taxes following his defeat at the Supreme Court.
The legal action, led by attorneys general from Oregon, Arizona, California, and New York, comes just days after Trump pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose the tariffs. This legal maneuver followed a Supreme Court ruling on February 20 that struck down his previous tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
“The focus right now should be on paying people back, not doubling down on illegal tariffs,” said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. His statement references a judge’s recent ruling that companies who paid tariffs under Trump’s previous framework should receive refunds.
Initially, Trump imposed 10% tariffs on foreign goods after the Supreme Court defeat, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant told CNBC on Wednesday that the administration would increase these levies to the maximum allowable 15% limit this week.
At the heart of the states’ argument is the claim that Trump is misapplying Section 122, a provision that has never been invoked before and was designed for specific, limited circumstances rather than broad import taxes. The lawsuit contends that the tariffs will increase costs for states, businesses, and consumers across the country.
Trump has consistently defended the tariffs as essential for reducing America’s persistent trade deficits. Under Section 122, these tariffs can remain in place for up to five months unless extended by congressional action.
The legal dispute centers on the interpretation of Section 122’s language, which addresses “fundamental international payments problems.” The key question is whether this wording encompasses trade deficits – the gap between what the United States sells to other countries and what it buys from them.
Critics argue that Section 122 is essentially obsolete, as it was created to address financial crises in the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. dollar was tied to gold. During that era, other countries were exchanging dollars for gold at fixed rates, potentially causing currency collapse and financial market chaos. However, since the dollar is no longer linked to gold, opponents argue this provision is outdated.
Interestingly, Trump’s own Justice Department previously stated in a court filing last year that Section 122 did “not have any obvious application” in combating trade deficits, describing them as “conceptually distinct” from balance-of-payment issues. This past argument now places the administration in an awkward position as it attempts to use this very provision.
Despite this contradiction, some legal experts believe Trump has stronger legal footing this time. Peter Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University’s Institute of International Economic Law, noted, “The legal reality is that courts will likely provide President Trump substantially more deference regarding Section 122 than they did to his previous tariffs under IEEPA.”
Adding complexity to the case, the specialized Court of International Trade in New York, which will hear the states’ lawsuit, previously wrote in its decision striking down the emergency-powers tariffs that Trump didn’t need them because Section 122 was available to combat trade deficits.
The president does retain other legal authorities to impose tariffs, some of which have already withstood legal challenges. For example, duties that Trump imposed on Chinese imports during his first term under Section 301 of the same 1974 trade act remain in effect.
The coalition challenging these new tariffs includes attorneys general from Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
As this legal battle unfolds, businesses, consumers, and international trading partners are closely watching the outcome, which could have significant implications for global trade relationships and domestic economic conditions.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
The mining and commodities sectors will be closely watching this dispute, as new tariffs could impact their operations and profitability. It’s a high-stakes battle over trade policy.
This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on the limits of the president’s trade authority.
I agree, the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches on trade policy is an ongoing debate.
While I understand the states’ concerns about overreach, the administration may argue that new tariffs are needed to protect American jobs and industries. This dispute highlights the tensions around global trade.
That’s a fair point. There are always tradeoffs to consider when it comes to protectionist policies.
The refund issue is an interesting angle. If companies paid tariffs under an invalid framework, they should reasonably expect to get that money back. But the broader tariff dispute is complex.
Absolutely, the legal and economic implications of this case will be worth tracking closely.
I’m curious to see how the courts interpret the president’s authority under the Trade Act of 1974. The states make a compelling argument, but the administration may have a different legal interpretation.
Yes, the interplay between executive powers and constitutional limits on that authority is a crucial aspect of this case.