25 States Sue Trump Administration Over New Tariffs After Supreme Court Ruling

WASHINGTON — A coalition of 25 states has filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s latest round of tariffs, arguing the new import taxes unlawfully attempt to replace tariffs that were struck down earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The lawsuit, filed Monday, contends the administration is using a different legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs after the Supreme Court ruled in February that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Last month, the administration imposed new tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on imports from 59 countries and the European Union, which together account for approximately 99% of U.S. imports. The administration said the tariffs target countries that have failed to adequately prohibit or enforce restrictions on goods produced with forced labor. The new tariffs took effect immediately after temporary worldwide tariffs expired on July 24.

The Trump administration invoked Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to implement the new tariffs. The law authorizes the president to impose tariffs and other trade measures against countries determined to be engaging in unfair trade practices.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the attorneys general leading the legal challenge, said the administration is attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court’s earlier decision.

“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.

President Trump has consistently defended higher tariffs as a cornerstone of his economic agenda, arguing they encourage companies to manufacture products in the United States, strengthen domestic industries, and reduce dependence on foreign imports.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA—which grants presidents emergency economic powers—does not authorize the president to impose broad tariffs based solely on trade deficits. The decision required the federal government to refund importers who had paid tariffs imposed under that authority.

Following the ruling, the administration temporarily imposed a worldwide 10% tariff while pursuing a different legal pathway to continue its trade agenda. Those temporary tariffs expired in late July.

White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the administration’s latest action, saying the tariffs are supported by federal law and are intended to address unfair trade practices involving forced labor.

“The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce,” Desai said. “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.”

Section 301 has previously survived legal challenges. Trump successfully relied on the authority during his first term to impose tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese imports, making it one of the administration’s most established trade enforcement tools.

The coalition of states argues, however, that the administration is improperly expanding the use of Section 301 to restore broad tariffs after the Supreme Court rejected its earlier approach under emergency powers.

The lawsuit is expected to become another significant legal test of presidential trade authority and could have wide-ranging implications for U.S. importers, manufacturers, consumers, and international trading partners.

If the states prevail, the case could once again require the federal government to suspend or refund tariffs collected under the latest policy. The Trump administration has indicated it intends to defend the tariffs in court.