25 states sue over Trump's new tariffs, calling them 'pretext' to
replace his old ones
[August 04, 2026]
By PAUL WISEMAN and MAE ANDERSON
WASHINGTON (AP) — Twenty-five states sued the Trump administration
Monday over its latest tariffs, calling them a pretext for replacing
import taxes the Supreme Court struck down in February.
The United States last month imposed double-digit tariffs on 59
countries and the European Union, charging that they had not done enough
to crack down on imports produced by forced labor. The new tariffs took
effect just as the clock ran out on temporary tariffs President Donald
Trump had turned to after the Supreme Court defeat.
“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,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Joining New York in the lawsuit announced Monday are 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.
Trump, who argues that high tariffs will revive American manufacturing,
last year overturned decades of U.S. policy that favored lower tariffs
and ever-freer trade. Invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic
Powers Act, or IEEPA, he imposed double-digit tariffs on imports from
almost every country, saying America’s longstanding trade deficit
amounted to a national emergency.
But the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not authorize tariffs. The
decision forced the administration to send refunds to importers who’d
paid the tariffs. Eager to make up the lost revenue, Trump turned to
temporary 10% worldwide tariffs. But they expired at midnight July 24.
Now he’s tapping more durable tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act
of 1974, which permits the president to impose import taxes and other
sanctions against countries found to engage in unfair trade practices.
Trump used Section 301 to impose big tariffs on China in his first term,
and they survived court challenges.
The administration invoked Section 301 to impose the forced-labor
tariffs, which range from 10% to 12.5% and hit countries that provide
99% of American imports.
[to top of second column]
|
“The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the
elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that
burden U.S. commerce,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said. “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.”
The states’ lawsuit follows two other lawsuits filed in The Court of
International Trade in July by small businesses that also challenged
the 301 tariffs.
Both of those lawsuits argue that the government didn’t adequately
establish its case against each specific economy or spell how the
tariffs will eliminate the specified practice they are being levied
for, as required by Section 301.
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law
School’s Center for International Law, said the challenges stem from
the fact that the 301 tariffs are the third time the administration
has tried to impose similar worldwide tariffs under different
statutes, and their “nearly copy-pasted” nature could pose a
challenge to defend in court.
However, he said while the statutes that the administration
implemented tariffs under previously were novelties and hadn’t been
used before for that purpose, Section 301 has been used before.
During Trump ’s first term, he cited Section 301 to impose tariffs
on Chinese imports, which survived legal challenges.
“Presidents have used it for decades, and Congress built it with
real guardrails: investigation, consultation, a public record,”
Appleton said. "The government’s defense won’t be ‘I had no power to
do this.' It will be, 'I stayed inside the lines Congress drew.'
That is a real fight, not a formality, and it is the one that will
decide this case.”
—-
Anderson reported from New York.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
