Washington, D.C.: A coalition of 25 Democratic-led US states has filed a lawsuit against the administration of President Donald Trump, challenging a fresh round of tariffs imposed on dozens of America’s trading partners. The states argue that the latest trade measures exceed the president’s legal authority and amount to an unlawful attempt to reintroduce tariffs that had previously been struck down by the US Supreme Court.
The lawsuit was filed in the US Court of International Trade and targets the new double-digit tariffs announced in July on imports from 60 countries. The Trump administration justified the tariffs by alleging that the affected trading partners had failed to adequately prevent the import of goods produced through forced labour. The new levies came into effect shortly after temporary tariffs adopted following an earlier court ruling expired.
Leading the legal challenge are Democratic attorneys general and governors from states including New York and Oregon. New York Attorney General Letitia James accused the administration of attempting to sidestep the Supreme Court’s decision by introducing another round of broad-based tariffs under a different legal framework. According to the plaintiffs, the tariffs effectively function as a tax on American families and businesses while doing little to address the underlying issue of forced labour.
The White House has defended the move, maintaining that the tariffs are both lawful and necessary to counter unfair trade practices abroad. A White House spokesperson stated that countries failing to prohibit or effectively enforce bans on goods produced with forced labour place an unreasonable burden on US commerce and American workers, justifying action under existing trade laws.
The latest tariffs were imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision designed to address unfair or discriminatory trade practices by foreign nations. The administration turned to this legal mechanism after the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs introduced by President Trump. That ruling compelled the government to establish a refund process for importers who had already paid those duties.
President Trump has consistently argued that higher tariffs are essential to revive domestic manufacturing, reduce America’s dependence on foreign imports, and protect US industries from unfair competition. Since returning to office, his administration has significantly shifted US trade policy away from decades of support for lower tariffs and freer global trade.
According to the lawsuit, however, the administration’s reliance on forced labour concerns serves merely as a legal pretext to restore tariffs that the courts have already deemed unlawful. The states contend that imposing broad import duties on products from 60 countries will not meaningfully combat forced labour practices and instead risks increasing costs for consumers, businesses, and supply chains across the United States.
The legal challenge adds to growing opposition against the administration’s trade agenda. Earlier, two separate lawsuits filed by small businesses also questioned the legality of the new tariffs, arguing that the government had failed to provide a valid legal basis for imposing such sweeping import duties. The outcome of the latest case is expected to have significant implications for the future of US trade policy and the scope of presidential authority over tariffs.
