24 Democratic-led U.S. states have sued President Donald Trump’s administration, challenging the legality of sweeping tariffs imposed on imports from 60 trading partners.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, argues that the latest import duties exceed the president’s legal authority and would increase costs for businesses, consumers and state economies.
The disputed tariffs, announced on July 24, impose duties of 10 per cent and 12.5 per cent on goods imported from 60 trading partners, including the European Union.
The Trump administration said the measures were aimed at pressuring countries it accused of failing to curb the export of goods produced with forced labour. They took effect after an earlier 10 per cent global tariff expired.
However, the coalition behind the lawsuit, comprising states led by Democratic governors or attorneys general, including Oregon and New York, argues that the administration is unlawfully reviving tariff policies that courts have already rejected.
In a statement issued yesterday, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said that despite losing at every stage in court, Trump was once again trying to create uncertainty for working families and businesses by imposing unlawful tariffs.
The lawsuit marks the latest legal challenge to Trump’s trade policy, following a series of court defeats over his earlier tariffs.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners. After that decision, the administration introduced temporary 10 per cent global tariffs under a separate legal provision.
Those tariffs were also struck down by the U.S. Court of International Trade, although they remain in effect pending an appeal.
The latest tariffs were imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the U.S. government to respond to unfair or discriminatory trade practices by foreign countries.
While previous administrations have relied on Section 301, it has traditionally been used to target specific countries, industries or trade practices rather than broad categories of imports.
The states argue that Trump’s use of Section 301 represents an unprecedented expansion of the law because the July tariffs apply to more than 99 per cent of U.S. imports. They contend that such a broad application goes beyond the authority Congress intended to grant under the statute.
In their complaint, the states also accuse the administration of using concerns over forced labour as a pretext to reinstate tariffs that courts had already declared unlawful. They argue that the measures will do little to combat forced labour while imposing additional costs on American businesses, consumers and state economies.