US, Aug 04 : A coalition of 25 Democratic led US states has filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration, challenging a fresh round of tariffs imposed on imports from 60 trading partners. The case, filed before the US Court of International Trade in New York, argues that the administration exceeded its legal authority by introducing sweeping import duties without congressional approval.
The legal action comes shortly after the new tariffs took effect last month and follows similar lawsuits brought by small American businesses. Those earlier challenges questioned the legality of the administration’s trade measures, with courts previously ruling against several of Trump’s broad tariff initiatives during his second term.
The latest trade action, announced on July 24, introduced tariffs of 10% and 12.5% on imports from 60 economies, including the European Union. The White House justified the move by claiming that several trading partners had failed to adequately prevent the export of products allegedly made using forced labour. These duties replaced an earlier 10% global tariff that had expired before the new measures were introduced.
States participating in the lawsuit include Oregon and New York, where Democratic governors or attorneys general are leading the legal challenge. They contend that the administration is once again attempting to impose wide ranging trade restrictions despite repeated judicial setbacks.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield criticised the policy, saying the renewed tariffs would create uncertainty for businesses and increase costs for working families. According to him, the administration is continuing to pursue trade measures that courts have repeatedly questioned.
The White House defended the decision, maintaining that the tariffs are both lawful and necessary to counter unfair international trade practices. Officials argued that countries failing to curb the export of goods linked to forced labour place American workers and businesses at a competitive disadvantage, making trade intervention necessary.
Trade policy has remained one of Trump’s signature economic strategies. However, several of his earlier tariff decisions have faced strong legal resistance. In February, the US Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not grant the president unilateral authority to impose broad tariffs on trading partners. Following that decision, the administration introduced temporary duties under a different legal framework, which were also declared unlawful by the US Court of International Trade, although they remained in force pending appeal.
The newest tariffs rely on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law historically used to address unfair trade practices by specific countries or industries. While previous administrations have invoked the provision, the states argue that Trump’s expansive use of the law to cover nearly all major trading partners is unprecedented and goes far beyond its intended scope.
According to the lawsuit, the July tariffs affect more than 99% of US imports, making them one of the broadest trade measures ever introduced under Section 301. The plaintiffs argue that the administration is using allegations related to forced labour as justification to revive tariff policies that courts have already ruled unlawful.
The states also contend that imposing blanket import duties will not effectively address global forced labour concerns. Instead, they argue, the policy will raise costs for American consumers, disrupt supply chains, and place additional pressure on domestic businesses that rely on imported goods.
The outcome of the case could have significant implications for the future of US trade policy, determining the extent of presidential authority in imposing tariffs and influencing how future administrations respond to international trade disputes.