The lawsuit blocks the 10% tariffs that President Trump immediately imposed after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated earlier tariffs.
listen to this article4 minutes
information
Published March 5, 2026
In the first legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s new 10% global tariffs, a group of 24 U.S. states sued the administration, arguing that the president cannot use his new legal authority to circumvent a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated most previous tariffs on imported goods.
In Thursday’s lawsuit, Democratic-led states including New York, California and Oregon also argue that new tariffs announced by President Trump shortly after the high court’s Feb. 20 ruling are also illegal.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
President Trump has said tariffs are essential to reducing America’s longstanding trade deficit. He imposed the tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court last year struck down tariffs imposed under the Emergency Powers Act.
Section 122, which has not been invoked so far, allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15%. These measures are limited to five months unless extended by Congress and are intended to address short-term financial emergencies, not day-to-day trade deficits, according to the states’ lawsuits filed in the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade.
The states say the trade law’s balance of payments deficit measures are primarily aimed at addressing “archaic” financial risks that existed when foreign governments could exchange dollars for gold held by the United States. But the states say Trump misapplied that standard to address the U.S.’s “trade deficit,” which occurs when a country imports more than it exports.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Layfield said in a press conference that President Trump’s tariffs are an “end run” attempt to cooperate with Congress as required by the U.S. Constitution.
“Make no mistake about it: President Trump’s signature economic policies are historically unpopular and are costing Americans, our businesses and our state hundreds of billions of dollars,” Layfield said. “This case cannot continue just because a few of Mr. Trump’s lawyers have found a way to twist words and construct legal arguments.”
“The focus right now should be on repaying people, not doubling down on illegal tariffs,” he said.
The lawsuit comes a day after a judge ruled that companies that paid tariffs under President Trump’s old framework should receive refunds.
central pillar
White House Press Secretary Khush Desai said in a statement that the administration will vigorously defend the president’s actions in court.
“The President is using the authority given to him by Congress to address fundamental international payments issues and address our country’s large and serious balance of payments deficit,” Desai said.
President Trump’s Feb. 20 executive order imposed a 10% tariff on imported goods, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday that the rate would likely rise to 15% later this week.
President Trump has made tariffs a central pillar of his foreign policy in his second term, asserting broad authority to impose tariffs without input from Congress. But on February 20, the Supreme Court handed Trump a crushing defeat, striking down the massive tariffs he imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that the law did not give him the authority he claimed.
President Trump responded by criticizing the judges who ruled against him and announcing new Section 122 tariffs. President Trump has also imposed other tariffs on imports such as automobiles, steel and aluminum under more traditional legal authority. These tariffs are safer from legal challenges.
Meanwhile, the court is working on about 2,000 lawsuits from companies seeking to recover more than $130 billion in IEEPA duty payments made by importers before the Supreme Court’s February ruling. The court on Wednesday ordered U.S. Customs to begin processing the duty refunds.
