25 States Challenge Trump Administration’s Latest Tariffs in Court

 A coalition of 25 states filed a lawsuit on Monday against the Trump administration, contesting a new set of import tariffs imposed last month under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The states argue the measures exceed presidential authority and function primarily as a replacement for earlier tariffs that the Supreme Court invalidated earlier this year.

The duties, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, apply to goods from about 60 trading partners, including the European Union and other major economies, that account for the overwhelming majority of U.S. imports. The administration linked the tariffs to investigations into forced labor practices in international supply chains, asserting that certain countries had not adequately restricted imports of goods produced with forced labor.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, seeks to block the tariffs, declare them unlawful, and secure refunds for duties already paid by the states. Attorneys general from Arizona, California, and Oregon are leading the effort. Participating states include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. The governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania also joined.

White House officials have defended the tariffs as a lawful exercise of authority under Section 301. A spokesman stated that the United States is addressing “unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce,” specifically citing failures by foreign countries to prohibit and enforce bans on goods produced with forced labor. The administration has described Section 301 as a durable and previously used tool and indicated it will defend the measures in court.

Tariffs have been a central element of the administration’s trade approach, aimed at addressing trade imbalances, protecting domestic industries, and generating revenue. Supporters view them as necessary leverage in international negotiations and a response to practices that disadvantage American workers. Critics, including the suing states, emphasize potential increases in consumer prices and questions about the scope of executive authority relative to Congress’s constitutional role in setting tariffs and taxes.

The case joins a series of multistate legal challenges to various federal actions. Proceedings in the Court of International Trade will determine the next steps, including any requests for temporary relief while the underlying legal questions are litigated. Outcomes could affect import costs, refund claims, and the administration’s broader use of trade authorities.