Twenty-five U.S. states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade on Monday, challenging the Trump administration’s new round of tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on 60 trading partners. The states are asking the court to suspend the measures, rule that the tariffs are unlawful, and order refunds for tariffs already paid.
The states involved in the lawsuit said the new tariffs cover 59 countries and the European Union, affecting around 99.4% of U.S. imports. The Trump administration said the measures were implemented under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, arguing that some trading partners have failed to effectively prevent the import of goods produced through forced labour. The government said the tariffs are necessary to protect U.S. business interests and workers’ rights. Affected trading partners include major economies such as Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, Taiwan, and China.
New York’s Attorney General said that regardless of the government’s justification, the president does not have the authority to impose large-scale tariffs on multiple countries unilaterally. New York’s governor also criticised the measures, saying the tariffs would ultimately raise prices for food, daily necessities, and construction materials, increasing the cost of living for consumers.
Besides New York, the 25 states involved include California, Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Meanwhile, the Liberty Justice Center previously filed a separate lawsuit on behalf of two small businesses, arguing that the Trump administration exceeded its executive authority in implementing the new tariffs.
Commentary:
The U.S. government is once again using tariffs as a tool of trade policy. After the Supreme Court previously struck down some tariff measures, the administration has now introduced a new round of tariffs using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This has raised questions over whether the government is simply using a different legal basis to continue policies that had already faced legal challenges.
The government argues that the tariffs are aimed at combating forced labour and protecting American workers. However, as the measures cover most major trading partners, questions remain over whether they are still specifically targeting forced labour issues or gradually becoming a broader protectionist tool.
A further concern is that when trade policy increasingly relies on executive orders rather than extensive congressional debate and legislation, it may weaken institutional checks and balances while creating greater uncertainty. If future administrations can repeatedly adjust tariffs through different legal justifications, it could not only affect business investment and supply chain planning but also undermine the credibility of the United States as a leader in the global trading system.