WASHINGTON – A coalition of 24 US states has launched a legal challenge against the Trump administration’s recently imposed tariffs, escalating a battle over trade policy following a Supreme Court decision that limited presidential authority in this area. The lawsuit, filed Thursday with the Court of International Trade, seeks to block the 10% tariffs announced last month, arguing they exceed the president’s constitutional powers.
The legal action comes after the Supreme Court, in February, struck down a previous set of sweeping tariffs imposed by President Trump using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The current dispute centers on tariffs enacted under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute that allows the president to impose duties of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days. The states contend that this law is likewise being misused, and that the tariffs are not authorized for the stated purpose of addressing trade deficits.
“The focus right now should be on paying people back, not doubling down on illegal tariffs,” stated Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield in a press release. The states’ complaint alleges that President Trump is “contorting” the term “balance of payments” and improperly equating it with a balance of trade, a claim they assert is “fatally flawed.”
This legal challenge represents the latest in a series of confrontations over President Trump’s leverage of executive authority to reshape global trade and implement protectionist measures without congressional approval. The outcome of the case could significantly impact the president’s economic agenda and potentially lead to a protracted court battle.
Supreme Court Ruling Paved the Way for Latest Tariffs
The current dispute arose after the Supreme Court’s February ruling curtailed the president’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The Court found that the president lacked the authority to impose tariffs solely based on national emergency declarations under that 1977 law. The Associated Press reported that the decision upended a core set of tariffs Trump had previously implemented.
In response, the administration announced new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. However, the states argue that this statute offers “limited tariff authority” primarily intended to address “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits,” and that the current application of the law is inappropriate. They further claim that Section 122 has never been used to impose broad tariffs in the manner recently enacted.
States Allege Constitutional Overreach
The lawsuit asserts that President Trump has once again overstepped his authority, violating the Constitution’s separation of powers principle. The states argue that the president’s actions “upend the constitutional order and bring chaos to the global economy.” They contend that the tariffs are not authorized by the statute and represent an unlawful exercise of power.
According to the complaint, the administration’s justification for the tariffs – addressing balance-of-payments issues – is a pretext for broader protectionist goals. The states argue that the president is improperly using the statute to impose “immense and ever-changing tariffs” on a wide range of imported goods.
White House Defends Tariff Policy
The White House has vowed to vigorously defend its actions in court. Spokesperson Kush Desai stated that the president is “using his authority granted by Congress to address fundamental international payments problems and to deal with our country’s large and serious balance-of-payments deficits.”
The administration has previously argued that tariffs are necessary to restore fairness to global trade, encourage investment in the US, and generate government revenue. CBS News reported that the US collected $287 billion in customs duties, taxes, and fees in 2025, a 192% increase from the previous year.
However, the states’ lawsuit challenges the administration’s economic rationale, arguing that the tariffs are ultimately harmful to American consumers and businesses. They also point to the Congressional Budget Office’s recent assessment that the Supreme Court’s IEEPA ruling will reduce projected tariff revenue by $2 trillion over the next decade.
The legal battle over these tariffs is expected to be complex and could have far-reaching implications for US trade policy. The Court of International Trade will now consider the states’ arguments and determine whether the Trump administration’s actions are lawful. The outcome of this case will likely shape the future of trade relations and the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.
Share your thoughts on this developing story in the comments below.
