- Twenty-five Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration over new 10% to 12.5% tariffs on imports from 59 countries and the EU.
- The lawsuit alleges the administration exceeded its authority by using Section 301 to bypass a previous Supreme Court trade ruling.
- New York Attorney General Letitia James warns these tariffs will increase consumer costs and cause major global supply chain disruptions.
- The White House maintains the duties are a lawful response to protect U.S. workers from competition involving forced-labor goods.
Washington D.C./ Kathmandu: A coalition of 25 Democratic-led U.S. states has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging a new round of import tariffs imposed on dozens of U.S. trading partners and arguing that the administration exceeded its legal authority by introducing the measures.
The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. Court of International Trade, where the states contend that the latest tariffs—ranging from 10% to 12.5% on imports from 59 countries and the European Union—are an unlawful attempt to reinstate broad trade restrictions that the U.S. Supreme Court previously invalidated under a different legal authority. The administration rejects that characterization, maintaining that the new measures rest on a separate statutory basis.
The tariffs took effect on July 24 after temporary global tariffs expired. Unlike the earlier tariff program, which relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the new duties were imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, following investigations conducted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). The administration says those investigations concluded that the affected trading partners had failed to adequately prohibit or enforce bans on imports of goods produced with forced labor, thereby creating unfair trade conditions for American workers and businesses.
According to the USTR, the investigations began in March 2026 and included public hearings, consultations with foreign governments, and thousands of public comments before the agency determined that responsive trade action was warranted. The administration argues that countries allowing forced-labor goods to enter their markets distort international competition and disadvantage U.S. manufacturers.
The states, however, argue that the administration has improperly used Section 301 to achieve essentially the same outcome as the earlier tariff regime struck down by the Supreme Court. They contend that the government failed to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to justify such sweeping tariffs and that the new policy exceeds the authority granted by Congress.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office is leading the lawsuit, said the administration is attempting to impose additional costs on American families and businesses after losing its previous tariff case before the Supreme Court. She argued that the new tariffs would increase prices for consumers, raise costs for businesses that rely on imported goods, and disrupt supply chains.
The White House strongly defended the policy. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the tariffs are a lawful response to unfair trade practices and are intended to protect American workers from competition involving goods linked to forced labor. The administration maintains that Section 301 provides a legally sound basis for the measures and that the new tariffs differ fundamentally from those previously invalidated by the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit follows separate legal challenges filed by small U.S. businesses, which have also argued that the administration exceeded its authority in imposing the new tariffs. Those cases are likewise pending before the U.S. Court of International Trade.
The latest case is expected to become another significant test of the scope of presidential authority over U.S. trade policy. A ruling in favor of the states could limit the executive branch's ability to impose broad tariffs under Section 301, while a decision upholding the administration's actions could reinforce the president's discretion to use trade measures in response to what the government considers unfair foreign practices. The case could ultimately be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, depending on the outcome in the lower courts.
