25 US states challenge Trump’s new tariffs in court
NEW YORK: A coalition of 25 US states has filed a lawsuit against the administration of President Donald Trump, seeking to block a new round of tariffs imposed on imports from dozens of countries.
The legal challenge was submitted to the US Court of International Trade in New York, where the states asked the court to suspend the tariffs, declare them unlawful and order the federal government to refund businesses that have already paid the import duties.
The coalition argued that the administration exceeded its legal authority by introducing sweeping tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. According to the lawsuit, the investigations cited by the administration as justification for the tariffs were used as a pretext to impose broad trade restrictions.
The disputed tariffs, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, were introduced last month and apply to imports from 60 trading partners, covering a significant share of goods entering the United States.
The Trump administration has defended the measures, saying they are intended to address concerns related to forced labour in international supply chains and to protect American trade interests. The White House maintains that the tariffs were imposed within the government’s legal authority and remain an important tool for securing fair trade practices.
A White House spokesperson said the administration is using powers granted under US trade law to respond to what it considers unfair policies and practices affecting American commerce. Officials also argued that Section 301 tariffs have previously withstood legal scrutiny and continue to be a lawful instrument of trade policy.
The lawsuit follows earlier legal disputes over President Trump’s tariff policies. Previous tariffs introduced under emergency economic powers were struck down by the US Supreme Court earlier this year, prompting the administration to replace them with the current Section 301 measures after a temporary global tariff expired in July.
The states involved in the case contend that the latest tariffs are arbitrary and unlawful, arguing that while they support efforts to combat forced labour worldwide, such concerns cannot be used to justify what they describe as an illegal expansion of presidential tariff powers.
