US states sue Trump over new tariffs on 60 trading partners

A coalition of 25 states sued the Trump administration on Monday in the US Court of International Trade, seeking to halt new import tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners. The states argue the tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, violate federal law and represent an illegal attempt to resurrect a policy the Supreme Court struck down in February.

Lawsuit targets sweeping tariffs

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the tariffs unlawful, block their enforcement, and order refunds for duties already paid. According to the states, the tariffs imposed last month on 59 countries plus the European Union cover 99.4% of all US imports. The action is led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who said the administration is "again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses."

James argued that the president lacks the constitutional authority to impose such sweeping tariffs, adding: "No matter how the administration tries to justify it, the law and our Constitution are clear." Joining New York are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin—plus the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

Backdrop: Supreme Court ruling and Section 301

The new tariffs took effect in July, following the Supreme Court's February decision that declared the earlier "Liberation Day" tariffs unconstitutional. They are based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law intended to target countries that use forced labor. The administration has charged that the affected countries have not done enough to prohibit imports made with forced labor.

Major trading partners affected include Canada, Japan, Norway, Taiwan, and China. The White House maintains that the action is lawful. Spokesman Kush Desai said the US is "using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden US commerce." He argued that a country's failure to enforce forced-labor prohibitions is unreasonable and burdens American workers, asserting that Section 301 tariffs have proven "legally durable" since Trump's first term.

States accuse administration of using forced labor as an excuse

New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General James contend that the administration's investigation into forced-labor practices does not satisfy Section 301's requirements. In a joint statement, they said the administration is using "forced labor as an excuse" to continue a policy of indiscriminate tariffs that drives up prices for American families.

Hochul called the tariffs "nothing more than a tax on hardworking families," claiming they increase costs for groceries, household essentials, building materials, and everyday goods. She echoed the Supreme Court's warning that the administration cannot ignore the law to impose sweeping tariffs.

Separate legal challenge and what's ahead

The lawsuit follows a separate action filed by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of two small US businesses, arguing that Trump exceeded his executive authority with the new tariffs. That case is proceeding alongside the states' challenge.

The legal fight now moves to the US Court of International Trade, a specialized forum that handles trade disputes. Experts suggest the outcome could hinge on whether the court interprets Section 301 as granting the president broad discretion, or whether it demands a genuine link to forced-labor findings. A ruling against the administration could force a refund of billions in tariffs and upend its trade policy strategy.

For businesses and consumers, the uncertainty is costly. Importers face the possibility of retroactive duties if tariffs are upheld, while families continue to feel the pinch of higher prices. Legal analysts expect the case to reach the Supreme Court, which has already shown skepticism toward the administration's use of executive power. The decision could redefine the boundaries of presidential authority on trade, with lasting implications for global commerce and domestic politics.