New York & Vermont Sue Trump Admin Over New 15% Tariffs | NBC5

MONTPELIER, Vt. — A coalition of twenty-two state attorneys general, including those from Novel York and Vermont, have launched a legal challenge against the Trump administration’s recently announced tariffs, seeking to block the imposition of a 15% duty on most products imported into the United States. The lawsuit, filed on March 5, 2026, argues that the tariffs are unlawful, exceeding the president’s constitutional authority and violating established administrative procedures. This legal action represents the latest in a series of ongoing disputes between state governments and the federal administration regarding trade policy and presidential overreach.

The legal challenge stems from President Trump’s decision to invoke Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that had never previously been used. This move came after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated previous tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), deeming them an overstep of executive power. The administration contends that these new tariffs are essential to address America’s longstanding trade deficits, a core tenet of President Trump’s economic agenda. However, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that Section 122 was intended for limited, specific circumstances, not a broad-based imposition of tariffs affecting a vast range of imported goods.

Supreme Court Ruling and the Shift to Section 122

The legal basis for the current lawsuit rests heavily on the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding the IEEPA tariffs. The Court found that the previous use of emergency powers to justify tariffs was an unlawful expansion of presidential authority, requiring congressional approval for such measures. As reported by NBC5, this ruling prompted the administration to seek an alternative legal pathway, ultimately landing on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 122 allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% on imports, but these tariffs are limited to a five-month duration unless Congress explicitly extends them.

The attorneys general contend that the administration’s reliance on Section 122 is a circumvention of the Supreme Court’s intent and a misuse of the law. They argue that the statute was designed for targeted responses to specific trade imbalances or unfair practices, not a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s tariff structure. The lawsuit further alleges that the tariffs violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires federal agencies to follow established rules and procedures when implementing new regulations. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim the administration failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for public comment before announcing the tariffs.

Broad Coalition Challenges Tariff Policy

The lawsuit isn’t limited to New York and Vermont. A substantial coalition of states has joined the legal effort, demonstrating widespread concern over the potential economic consequences of the tariffs. The states involved include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. The Governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania have also joined the suit, highlighting the bipartisan opposition to the tariff policy. This broad coalition underscores the potential for widespread economic disruption across the country.

New York Attorney General Letitia James and Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark have been at the forefront of challenging the Trump administration’s policies. Notably, James, along with eleven other attorneys general, previously filed a similar lawsuit in April 2025, attempting to halt the imposition of earlier tariffs. As detailed by V&E Law, this prior legal action demonstrates a consistent pattern of resistance from these states to the administration’s trade policies.

Economic Concerns and Potential Impacts

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that the tariffs will inevitably lead to increased costs for businesses and consumers. By raising the price of imported goods, the tariffs could contribute to inflation and reduce purchasing power. Businesses that rely on imported materials or components may be forced to raise prices, potentially impacting their competitiveness. The tariffs could disrupt global supply chains and lead to retaliatory measures from other countries, further harming the U.S. Economy. The lawsuit specifically points to the potential for significant economic harm to states like Vermont and New York, which have substantial trade relationships with countries likely to be affected by the tariffs.

The administration, however, maintains that the tariffs are a necessary step to level the playing field and protect American industries. President Trump has repeatedly asserted that the tariffs will incentivize companies to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States and reduce the country’s trade deficit. He argues that the tariffs will create a more favorable environment for American businesses and workers, ultimately boosting the economy. However, critics contend that these claims are unsubstantiated and that the tariffs will ultimately harm the U.S. Economy more than they help it.

Parallel Legal Battles and Ongoing Disputes

This lawsuit is just one of several ongoing legal battles between state governments and the Trump administration. In a separate case, Vermont and New York are also involved in a lawsuit challenging the administration’s cuts to energy and infrastructure programs. According to WCAX, the states allege that the administration deliberately targeted funding for projects in states that have supported Democratic candidates. This lawsuit, along with the tariff challenge, underscores the growing tension between state governments and the federal administration over a range of policy issues.

the Trump administration has also initiated legal action against New York and Vermont, alleging that the states’ “climate Superfund” statutes are unconstitutional. The federal government argues that these state laws are preempted by the Clean Air Act and infringe on federal authority over foreign affairs. This legal dispute highlights the administration’s commitment to challenging state-level efforts to address climate change and protect the environment.

What Happens Next?

The lawsuit challenging the tariffs is currently pending before a federal court. The court will likely hear arguments from both sides in the coming weeks and issue a ruling on the legality of the tariffs. The outcome of the case could have significant implications for U.S. Trade policy and the relationship between the federal government and state governments. If the court rules in favor of the states, the administration would be forced to rescind the tariffs. If the court rules in favor of the administration, the states could appeal the decision to a higher court, potentially leading to a lengthy legal battle. The case is expected to be closely watched by businesses, economists, and policymakers across the country.

The legal challenges surrounding the Trump administration’s policies are far from over. As state governments continue to push back against federal overreach, the courts are likely to play an increasingly important role in shaping the future of American governance. The outcome of these legal battles will have a lasting impact on the balance of power between the federal government and the states, as well as the direction of U.S. Economic and environmental policy.

Key Takeaways:

• New York and Vermont, joined by twenty other states, are suing the Trump administration over newly imposed tariffs.
• The lawsuit argues the tariffs are illegal due to exceeding presidential authority and violating administrative procedures.
• The legal challenge follows a Supreme Court ruling invalidating previous tariffs imposed under IEEPA.
• The administration defends the tariffs as necessary to reduce trade deficits and protect American industries.
• The case is expected to have significant economic and political implications.

The court is expected to hear arguments in the coming weeks. We will continue to provide updates on this developing story as it unfolds. Share your thoughts on this important legal challenge in the comments below.