The New Lawsuit Against Trump's Tariffs
A coalition of attorneys general from 24 states filed a lawsuit on Thursday in the Court of International Trade challenging President Donald Trump's invocation of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose 10% tariffs on imports. The action targets Trump's effort to maintain these duties after the Supreme Court blocked his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in a 6-3 ruling last month. States including New York, Oregon, California, and Arizona lead the challenge, asserting that Trump lacks the statutory authority for these measures.
The plaintiffs describe the move as a deliberate sidestep of judicial constraints, ensuring Trump's tariff regime returns to federal courts for the second time in just a few years. Trump has signaled plans to escalate duties to 15% for specific countries, underscoring his commitment to broad import taxes as a core economic strategy.
Legal and Historical Context
Prior to this suit, two federal courts—the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—had invalidated Trump's IEEPA-based tariffs. The Manhattan-based CIT ruled that the president does not possess unbounded authority under the emergency law to enact such measures. Lower courts questioned why Trump bypassed narrower, Congress-enacted statutes that cap tariffs or require legislative review.
Section 122 allows tariffs to persist for up to 150 days without congressional approval, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has pledged Democrats will block any extension. The states' complaint accuses Trump of wielding unrestrained executive power to impose worldwide tariffs by any means.
As with his unlawful use of IEEPA, the President has once again exercised tariff authority that he does not have — involving a statute that does not authorize the tariffs he has imposed — to upend the constitutional order and bring chaos to the global economy.
Economic Arguments and Expert Views
The lawsuit emphasizes that a trade deficit does not equate to a balance-of-payments deficit, contrary to Trump's proclamation under Section 122. Last April, Trump declared a national trade emergency via IEEPA to address imbalances, reduce deficits, and bolster U.S. manufacturing, but courts rejected this approach.
Economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan highlighted a key distinction in trade dynamics. The administration faces potential fierce opposition from the White House and Justice Department, with next steps in the case remaining uncertain.
We have a dollar deficit, but we have a stuff surplus... What that means is we sell China a small amount of stuff, and they sell us a large amount of stuff. For every dollar bill that goes to China, the U.S. gets something for it that Americans want to buy, like T-shirts.
