According to a report from Reuters on August 4, a coalition of 25 Democratic-led states has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, accusing President Trump of once again overstepping his legal authority with the latest round of tariffs imposed on 60 trading partners. This marks another major legal action against White House trade policy, following a similar challenge initiated by small businesses last month.
The new tariffs, which took effect on July 24, impose rates of 10% and 12.5% on 60 trading partners, including the European Union, citing insufficient efforts by these countries to prevent the export of goods produced through forced labor. These tariffs went into effect precisely as the previous round of 10% global tariffs expired.
The states filing the lawsuit include Oregon, New York, and others, all led by Democratic attorneys general or governors. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield stated bluntly in a press release: “Despite losing in court, Trump is trying once again to create more chaos for working families and Oregon-based businesses.” The White House has not yet responded to requests for comment.
This lawsuit is the latest chapter in the ongoing judicial resistance against Trump’s tariff policies.
On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that most of Trump’s broad tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were invalid, determining that the law did not authorize the president to unilaterally impose import duties on trading partners. However, Trump not only refused to back down but escalated the trade war, accusing Supreme Court justices of “disloyalty” and invoking another legal authority never before used by any president to impose tariffs, enacting a temporary 10% tariff. That tariff was subsequently ruled illegal by the U.S. Court of International Trade but remained in effect while the government appealed.
The legal basis for the current tariffs has shifted to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974—designed to combat unfair or discriminatory economic practices by other countries and historically used by previous U.S. presidents. However, the states and small businesses argue in their filings that Section 301 tariffs have always targeted specific countries and industries, with no precedent for the current “one-size-fits-all” approach covering more than 99% of U.S. imports.
Additionally, the states’ complaint emphasizes that the new tariffs, justified on the grounds of forced labor, are essentially a repackaging of the illegal tariff policies already rejected by the courts. They criticize that imposing blanket taxes on imported goods does “nothing practical” to address real forced labor issues globally, describing it as a political maneuver by the executive branch to circumvent judicial rulings.
As this latest lawsuit moves forward, the Trump administration’s tariff-centric foreign policy once again faces serious legal scrutiny, and the debate over the boundaries of presidential trade authority is expected to continue intensifying.
