25 US states sue to block Trump's new 10–12.5% tariffs on 60 trading partners, calling forced-labour justification a pretext

The lawsuit

Twenty-five Democratic-led US states filed a joint lawsuit on Monday against the Trump administration's newest tariffs, asking the US Court of International Trade in New York to strike down duties of 10% and 12.5% imposed on goods from 60 trading partners. The plaintiffs include New York, California, Arizona, 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. Twenty-three of them joined through their attorneys general; Kentucky and Pennsylvania joined through their governors. The case is docketed as State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al.

The complaint accuses the administration of using forced labour as a pretext to continue an illegal tariff scheme. The states argue the investigation that led to the duties made no mention of forced labour when it was first announced, and that the US Trade Representative instead framed it as a way to ensure continuity with tariffs courts had already invalidated.

Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, whose office published the coalition's account of the filing, put the states' case this way.

Trump has made it clear that he will stop at nothing to impose his agenda with these illegal tariffs, no matter how flimsy the legislative packaging or how many American families are crushed under their collective weight.

What the tariffs cover

The duties took effect on 24 July, the same day a prior worldwide 10% tariff expired. They apply to imports from economies that together account for 99% of US imports, including China, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Switzerland. The rate is 10% for the EU and Taiwan, while Switzerland, Japan and South Korea face 12.5% after crediting existing most-favoured-nation tariffs. Products already subject to other duties, such as steel and aluminium, are excluded.

The White House grounded the tariffs in Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the same authority Trump used in his first term for China-specific duties that survived court challenges. The administration says the targeted countries fail to adequately prohibit imports of goods made with forced labour.

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.

A third attempt at a tariff wall

The new duties are the administration's third attempt to build a global tariff regime. The Supreme Court ruled on 20 February that most of Trump's original tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, were unlawful. The government was ordered to refund billions of dollars to affected companies. Temporary 10% tariffs followed on 24 February under Section 122 of the Trade Act, a provision never used before and one that caps such a surcharge at 150 days. The Court of International Trade ruled on 7 May that those surcharges were also unlawful. That ruling was stayed pending appeal, and the temporary duties expired on 24 July.

The states contend the current tariffs repeat the same flaws. The complaint highlights the absence of any mechanism for targeted countries to have the duties lifted if they address the forced-labour practices cited in the investigation, which the plaintiffs say violates the statute. It also notes that duties were set in a nearly uniform manner despite widely varying conditions across the 60 economies.

Reactions from the states

State officials framed the lawsuit as a defence of household budgets. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said the tariffs drive up costs for working families and make everyday items such as clothing and electronics more expensive. California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the levies a tax on Americans.

Tariffs are taxes. And the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the President's failed and illegal economic policy.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said the administration was trying to burden families and businesses with a new round of tariffs after losing at the Supreme Court. The suit follows similar legal challenges filed by smaller US companies on the day the duties took effect.

What happens next

The case now sits before the Court of International Trade. If the court strikes down the duties, it would mark a third judicial defeat for Trump's tariff agenda, which has been a central pillar of his second term since January 2025. Switzerland, meanwhile, said it took note of the new rate but firmly rejected the forced-labour allegations and continues to pursue a binding agreement with the United States.