A coalition of 25 US states has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging its latest round of tariffs and arguing that the measures are an unlawful attempt to replace import taxes previously struck down by the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit, filed on Monday, contends that the administration is using a different legal route to impose tariffs after the Supreme Court ruled in February that the earlier import duties exceeded presidential authority.
Reacting to the move, New York Attorney General Letitia James accused the administration of unlawfully shifting the tax burden onto Americans.
“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,” James said.
The legal challenge was filed by New York alongside 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 dispute follows the US government’s decision last month to impose double-digit tariffs on imports from 59 countries and the European Union, arguing that those nations had not done enough to stop the export of goods allegedly produced through forced labour.
The tariffs, ranging from 10 to 12.5 per cent, came into effect shortly after temporary import duties introduced by President Donald Trump expired in late July.
Trump has consistently defended higher tariffs as a strategy to revive domestic manufacturing and reduce America’s trade deficit.
During his first term, the president relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to introduce broad tariffs on imports, arguing that the country’s longstanding trade imbalance constituted a national emergency.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the law did not grant the president authority to impose such tariffs, forcing the administration to refund importers who had paid the duties.
Following that setback, the administration turned to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law that allows the president to impose tariffs or sanctions against countries found to engage in unfair trade practices.
Defending the latest measures, White House spokesperson Kush Desai insisted the administration acted within the law.
“The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce. A foreign country’s failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens U.S. commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed. Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally durable tool since the president’s first term, and they remain so now,” Desai said.
The lawsuit comes after two separate legal actions filed in July by small businesses before the US Court of International Trade, also challenging the Section 301 tariffs.
Those cases argue that the administration failed to properly justify the tariffs against each affected economy or explain how the measures would eliminate the alleged unfair trade practices, as required under the law.
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, said the latest legal battle differs from previous challenges because Section 301 has long been recognised as a valid trade enforcement tool.
“Presidents have used it for decades, and Congress built it with real guardrails: investigation, consultation, a public record,” Appleton said.
“The government’s defense won’t be ‘I had no power to do this.’ It will be, ‘I stayed inside the lines Congress drew.’ That is a real fight, not a formality, and it is the one that will decide this case.”
