Trump’s Tariff Proposal Faces Legal Challenge as Multiple States File Lawsuit

A coalition of 24 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump on Thursday, seeking to block his newly imposed 10% tariffs. The legal challenge marks the second time in recent years that Trump’s tariff policies have faced significant court opposition.

The lawsuit, filed in the Court of International Trade, includes AGs from New York, Oregon, California, and Arizona. They argue that Trump lacks the legal authority to impose the tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which he invoked after the Supreme Court blocked his previous attempt to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for the same purpose.

In their filing, the attorneys general accused the president of attempting to “sidestep” last month’s 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that rejected his use of IEEPA to unilaterally impose global tariffs. The AGs characterized Trump’s latest move as “an exercise of completely unrestrained executive power.”

“As with his unlawful use of IEEPA, the President has once again exercised tariff authority that he does not have — involving a statute that does not authorize the tariffs he has imposed — to upend the constitutional order and bring chaos to the global economy,” the lawsuit states.

Trump initially responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling by immediately pivoting to Section 122 to maintain the 10% tariffs while also announcing plans to increase duties to 15% for certain countries. The president has consistently embraced tariffs as the cornerstone of his economic policy, previously describing himself as the “Tariff Man” and framing the issue as “life or death” for the American economy.

The legal battle over Trump’s tariff authority has already traveled through multiple courts. Two federal courts — the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — had previously blocked his use of IEEPA to enact tariffs, prompting the administration’s unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court. The Manhattan-based Court of International Trade ruled that Trump, even as commander in chief, does not possess “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs under emergency laws.

A key legal question centers on the interpretation of Section 122. Under this provision, tariffs can remain in place for up to 150 days without congressional approval. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has already pledged that Democrats will not approve any extension of these broad import duties.

The state attorneys general’s lawsuit specifically challenges Trump’s justification for the tariffs, arguing that “a trade deficit is not a balance of payments deficit” — a distinction that economic experts have also highlighted. Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Michigan, previously explained that America’s trade relationship with countries like China represents “a dollar deficit, but a stuff surplus,” meaning the U.S. receives goods in exchange for the dollars it sends abroad.

The White House and Justice Department are expected to mount a vigorous defense against this latest challenge, though the administration may face significant hurdles. Lower courts had previously pressed the Justice Department to explain why Trump was using emergency powers rather than more specific, congressionally-enacted trade statutes that include caps on tariff levels and timeframes subject to legislative review.

This legal confrontation unfolds against the backdrop of ongoing economic uncertainty, with markets reacting to concerns about escalating trade tensions. The outcome of this case could significantly impact Trump’s ability to implement his protectionist trade agenda and shape U.S. trade policy in the coming years.