25 US states sue Trump administration over new tariffs, calling them illegal pretext

The lawsuit

A coalition of 25 US states filed suit against the Trump administration on Monday, challenging the latest round of tariffs as an illegal attempt to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling. The complaint, lodged in the US Court of International Trade in Manhattan, was led by New York, California, and Oregon, and joined by states from Arizona to Wisconsin. Twenty-three of the plaintiffs are led by Democratic governors; Nevada and Vermont have Republican governors but joined the action.

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.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield added that the president was "trying yet again to inflict more on working families and homegrown businesses." California Attorney General Rob Bonta noted it was the third time the state had sued over what he called an illegal misuse of tariff powers.

Tariff background

The new duties, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, took effect on July 24, the same day a temporary 10% worldwide tariff expired. That temporary levy had been imposed after the Supreme Court ruled in February that the administration's original tariffs, enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, were unconstitutional. The court ordered refunds, forcing the White House to find an alternative legal basis.

The administration turned to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs on countries found to engage in unfair trade practices. Trump had used the same provision in his first term to levy tariffs on China, and those withstood court challenges. This time, the US Trade Representative conducted a 150-day investigation into whether trading partners were adequately combating forced labor in their supply chains. The resulting tariffs cover about 60 countries and the European Union, accounting for 99% of American imports. The EU, despite its own ban on forced labor, faces a 10% levy.

Legal arguments

The states argue that the forced-labor investigation was a pretext. "There is no rational fit between the purported problem of forced labor in international supply chains and the blanket global tariffs," the complaint states. The plaintiffs contend that the tariffs are arbitrary and capricious, and that the USTR failed to follow proper procedures. They also note that the tariffs contain no mechanism for a country to have them lifted after addressing forced labor concerns, which they say contradicts the statute. The lawsuit describes the Section 301 investigations as "a sham and illegal effort to exercise unfettered tariff power."

White House response

The administration insists the tariffs are lawful. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the United States is "using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce." He added that a foreign country's failure to effectively ban imports made with forced labor is itself an unreasonable practice.

The USTR, Jamieson Greer, has framed the tariffs as an incentive for trading partners to join the US in eliminating forced labor from global supply chains. The administration maintains that the Section 301 process was properly conducted and that the tariffs are a legitimate tool to address a persistent trade problem.

Broader trade conflict

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal battles over Trump's aggressive trade policy. Since returning to office, the president has argued that US trading partners have taken advantage of the world's largest economy and has used tariffs as leverage to strike new deals. His first round of broad tariffs was invalidated by the Supreme Court, and a separate group of small businesses filed their own challenge to the new Section 301 duties hours after they took effect. The 25-state coalition now asks the Court of International Trade to rule that the president exceeded his authority once again.