A coalition of 25 Democratic-led states sued Donald Trump’s administration on Monday in the US Court of International Trade, challenging new double-digit tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners. The states argue that the president exceeded his legal authority by imposing the levies under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The tariffs took effect in July as temporary duties introduced after the US Supreme Court rejected Trump’s main tariff programme were expiring. The states say the administration is using allegations about forced-labour imports as a pretext to restore tariffs that the court had already found unlawful.
States challenge the legal basis for the tariffs
The lawsuit includes states such as New York and Oregon, all represented by Democratic attorneys general or governors. Their complaint says a broad tax on imports cannot be justified as a response to forced labour and does not address the underlying problem of goods produced under coercive conditions. New York Attorney General Letitia James said the administration was attempting to increase taxes on households and companies after losing before the Supreme Court.
Her comments framed the case as a direct challenge to the government’s effort to preserve tariff revenue through a different legal route. The states’ filing follows two earlier lawsuits brought by small businesses over the tariffs. The new duties cover more than 99 percent of US imports, making the dispute relevant to a wide range of companies that bring products into the country and to the costs passed on through supply chains.
How the tariff dispute reached the new court case
Trump initially relied on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose double-digit duties on imports from almost every country. He argued that the longstanding US trade deficit amounted to a national emergency and said higher tariffs would help rebuild American manufacturing. The Supreme Court later ruled that IEEPA did not give the president power to impose tariffs.
That decision required the administration to create a process for refunding importers who had paid the duties, while also removing the legal foundation for the flagship levies Trump had called “liberation day” tariffs. With that programme blocked, the administration introduced temporary worldwide tariffs of 10 percent. Those duties ended at midnight on July 24. The latest measures then took effect under Section 301, a provision intended to respond to unfair or discriminatory economic practices by foreign governments, rather than under the emergency-powers law rejected by the Supreme Court.
White House defends response to forced labour
White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the new tariffs as legal and appropriate. He said a foreign government’s failure to prohibit and enforce a ban on imports made with forced labour harms US commerce, including American workers, and therefore requires action. The administration’s position links the levies to trade practices abroad, while Trump has separately presented tariffs as a tool for reviving US manufacturing.
The states dispute that connection, arguing that the forced-labour rationale does not support duties applied across nearly all US imports. The immediate legal question is whether Section 301 permits the administration to impose these new tariffs in the circumstances described in the complaint. The Court of International Trade will consider the states’ challenge alongside the earlier business lawsuits, while the administration continues to defend the levies as a lawful response to unfair foreign practices.
Also read: US diplomats stage walkout at UN following French criticism of Trump administration’s human rights record.
More context: Trump asks Supreme Court to reinstate mail-in voting restrictions ahead of November elections.
Related coverage: Trump seeks Supreme Court review to dismiss $83m defamation award to E Jean Carroll.
Related coverage:
No comments yet. Start the discussion.