24 States in the US Announce Lawsuit to Block Trump's Latest Global Tariff Policy

A coalition of 24 U.S. states will file a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Thursday, marking the first legal challenge to its newly implemented 10% global tariff. The states involved argue that the president cannot bypass the Supreme Court’s previous rulings by citing new legal grounds, as the Court has already invalidated most of the tariffs previously imposed by Trump.

These Democratic-led states (including New York, California, and Oregon) believe that the new tariffs announced immediately after the Supreme Court’s decision on February 20 are also illegal.

The states preparing to sue state that these tariffs are imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, for a period of 150 days. However, this law was originally intended to address short-term monetary emergencies, not to manage routine trade imbalances caused by long-term trade deficits.

The lawsuit will be filed in the U.S. International Trade Court in New York City. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield stated, “The current focus should be on refunding the tariffs already collected, not on further escalating these illegal tariffs.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James pointed out, “After the Supreme Court rejected his initial attempt to impose comprehensive tariffs, the president is creating more economic chaos and expects the American people to pay for it.”

The executive order signed by Trump on February 20 imposed a uniform 10% tariff on imported goods. However, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Wednesday that this rate could be raised to 15% later this week.

During his second term, Trump made tariff policy a core part of his diplomatic and economic strategy, claiming that the president has broad authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval.

However, on February 20, the Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to Trump: the Court ruled that the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lacked legal basis, as the law did not grant the president the authority he claimed to tax.

In response, Trump publicly criticized the judges who issued the unfavorable ruling and subsequently announced new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This legal provision had never before been used in the U.S. to impose tariffs.

Meanwhile, Trump also imposed tariffs on imports such as automobiles, steel, and aluminum based on more traditional legal authorizations. These types of tariffs are less susceptible to legal challenges.

The states filing the lawsuit argue that the Trade Act allows tariffs only in response to so-called “balance of payments deficits.” The last time such a situation occurred was during the presidency of Richard Nixon, when the U.S. was abandoning the gold standard.

The states believe that measures related to international balance of payments deficits in the Trade Act were mainly intended to address monetary and financial risks, such as sudden and significant devaluation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets.

However, in the view of the states, Trump incorrectly applied this legal standard, attempting to address the U.S. trade deficit.

In their lawsuit, the states request the court to issue an injunction to prevent the new tariffs from taking effect and to order the government to refund all tariffs collected under Section 122 of the Trade Act.

Meanwhile, the International Trade Court is currently handling about 2,000 corporate lawsuits, in which companies seek refunds for tariffs previously imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, totaling over $130 billion.

(Source: Caixin)