States Challenge New Tariffs Imposed by Trump Administration

Twenty-five states initiated legal action against the Trump administration, challenging its latest tariffs. These states claim the tariffs aim to replace ones nullified by the Supreme Court in February.

The U.S. implemented high tariffs on 59 countries and the European Union, focusing on imports linked to forced labor. This move followed the expiration of earlier temporary tariffs.

New York Attorney General Letitia James criticized the administration’s move, stating, “After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses.” States joining the lawsuit include Arizona, California, and several others.

Trump advocates for high tariffs, believing they will boost American manufacturing. He discarded longstanding U.S. policy in favor of this approach. Relying on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Trump initially imposed high tariffs, arguing America’s trade deficit posed a national emergency.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed. This decision led to refunds for tariffs that had been collected. To regain revenue, Trump briefly used 10% temporary tariffs, which expired in July.

The administration is now using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This law allows tariffs and sanctions against nations with unfair trade practices. Previously, Trump used Section 301 for tariffs on Chinese goods, which survived legal scrutiny.

White House spokesman Kush Desai explained, “The United States is using its lawful authority to eliminate unreasonable acts harming U.S. commerce. A failure to ban goods from forced labor burdens U.S. commerce and must be addressed.” These tariffs affect countries providing 99% of U.S. imports.

Two other lawsuits in July by small businesses also challenge these tariffs, arguing insufficient case establishment against each economy as needed by Section 301.

Barry Appleton, a law professor, notes the challenge of defending tariffs similar in nature and repeatedly imposed under different statutes. Section 301, however, is a known and previously used authority for such tariffs.

Appleton stated, “Presidents have used it for decades. Congress built this with checks: investigation, consultation, and public record. It’s about whether the administration acted within legal boundaries, not about its authority to impose tariffs.”