25 States Sue Trump Administration Over New Tariffs

Twenty-Five States File Federal Lawsuit Challenging New Tariff Actions

According to the complaint, the administration exceeded its legal authority to tax imports and utilized allegations of forced-labor violations merely as a pretext to replace earlier import taxes struck down by the judiciary. New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading the joint lawsuit alongside states featuring Democratic attorneys general or governors.

After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs, James said in a statement.

States joining New York in the litigation include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

New York Sues Kalshi for $36 Billion Over Illegal Gambling

Context and Legal Escalation Following Prior Court Defeats

The newly contested tariffs range from 10% to 12.5% and hit economies that provide over 99% of American imports. They took effect on July 24, precisely as a previous 10% global tariff expired. That earlier temporary tariff had been enacted after a major Supreme Court ruling on February 20 found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the president to unilaterally impose broad tariffs.

That high court defeat forced the administration to issue refunds to importers who had already paid the tariffs. Seeking to make up for lost revenue, President Donald Trump turned to temporary worldwide tariffs before pivoting to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 301 permits import taxes and sanctions against nations found to engage in unfair trade practices.

Netanyahu and Trump Meet at White House to Discuss Iran and Lebanon Conflict

While past presidents have utilized Section 301—and Trump used it on Chinese imports during his first term—the states and small businesses argue that historical applications were targeted at specific nations and industries.

Administration Defense and White House Response

The White House defended the trade measures as lawful actions intended to combat unfair global practices. White House spokesman Kush Desai stated that the administration acted within its established powers.

The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce, Desai said, according to AP News. “A foreign country’s failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens U.S. commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed. Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally durable tool since the president’s first term, and they remain so now.”

ICE Outfits Haitian Immigrants in Ohio With Ankle Monitors

Broader Legal Challenges and Regional Fallout

The state-level lawsuit follows two separate lawsuits filed in July by small U.S. businesses in the Court of International Trade. Those business plaintiffs similarly argued that the government failed to adequately establish its case against each specific economy or explain how the tariffs would eliminate the specified forced labor practices.

Despite losing every step of the way, Trump is trying yet again to inflict more chaos on working families and homegrown Oregon businesses, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement.