Twenty-Four Us States Announce Lawsuit to Block Trump's Latest Global Tariff Policy

A coalition of 24 U.S. states will file a lawsuit on Thursday against the Trump administration over its newly imposed 10% global tariffs, marking the first legal challenge to these tariffs. The states argue that the president cannot circumvent a prior U.S. Supreme Court ruling—which invalidated most of Trump’s earlier tariffs—by invoking a new legal basis.

These Democrat-led states (such as New York, California, and Oregon) believe that the new tariffs announced by Trump immediately after the Supreme Court ruling on February 20 are also illegal.

The states that are preparing to file a lawsuit stated that these tariffs were implemented under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, for a period of 150 days. However, the law was originally intended to address short-term currency emergencies, not the normal trade imbalances caused by long-term trade deficits.

These states will file the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York City. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said, "The current focus should be on refunding the tariffs already collected from the people, not on continuing to increase these illegal tariffs."

New York Attorney General Letitia James stated, "After the Supreme Court rejected his first attempt to impose sweeping tariffs, the president is creating more economic chaos and expecting the American people to pay for it."

Trump signed an executive order on February 20 imposing a uniform 10% tariff on imported goods. However, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated on Wednesday that this rate could be raised to 15% later this week.

During his second presidential term, Trump made tariff policy a central pillar of his foreign and economic strategy, claiming that the president has broad powers to implement tariffs without congressional approval.

However, on February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to Trump: the Court ruled that the extensive tariffs he imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lacked legal basis, as the law did not grant the president the taxing authority he claimed.

In response, Trump publicly criticized the judge who made the unfavorable ruling, and later announced levying new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This particular provision of the law had never been used in the United States to impose tariffs.

Meanwhile, Trump also imposed tariffs on imported goods such as automobiles, steel, and aluminum under more traditional legal authorities—tariffs that are legally less vulnerable to challenge.

The states that filed the lawsuit pointed out that the Trade Act allows the imposition of tariffs under the premise of responding to so-called balance of payments deficits. The last time this occurred was during the presidency of former Republican President Richard Nixon, when the United States was abandoning the gold standard.

States consider that the measures concerning balance-of-payments deficits in the Trade Act are primarily intended to address monetary and financial risks, such as a sudden and sharp depreciation of the U.S. dollar in the foreign exchange market.

However, in the view of the states, Trump misapplied this legal standard in an attempt to address the U.S. trade deficit.

In their lawsuit, the states asked the court to issue an injunction to block the new tariffs from taking effect and to require the government to refund all tariff payments collected under Section 122 of the Trade Act.

Meanwhile, the Court of International Trade is currently handling approximately 2,000 corporate lawsuits. These companies are seeking refunds of tariffs previously imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, totaling over $130 billion.