A sweeping legal battle is unfolding in the United States after 24 states moved to block the latest round of global tariffs introduced by President Donald Trump, arguing that the administration is attempting to revive a trade policy already struck down by the country’s highest court.
The coalition of states — led by Democratic leadership and including California, New York, and Oregon — has filed a lawsuit in the United States Court of International Trade seeking to halt a new 10% tariff on imports from around the world. The measure was announced shortly after the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated most of the administration’s earlier tariffs.
State officials claim the new duties are effectively an attempt to bypass that ruling by invoking a different law. According to the lawsuit, the administration is relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision designed for short-term monetary emergencies rather than ongoing trade imbalances.
The tariffs were imposed for a period of 150 days and could rise to 15% in the near future. Officials in the administration say the policy is meant to address persistent international payment imbalances and America’s large balance-of-payments deficit.
Critics, however, argue the legal justification stretches the law far beyond its intended purpose. State leaders contend that the balance-of-payments provisions referenced in the Trade Act were crafted decades ago to deal with monetary pressures linked to the old global system in which foreign governments could exchange dollars for U.S. gold reserves.
Instead, the states say the administration is using those provisions to tackle modern trade deficits — a situation where a country imports more goods than it exports — which they argue falls outside the law’s scope.
The dispute highlights how tariffs have become a defining feature of Trump’s second-term economic strategy. The president has repeatedly asserted broad authority to impose trade barriers without congressional approval.
That approach was dealt a major setback earlier this year when the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give the president the sweeping authority he had claimed to impose tariffs under emergency powers.
In response, the administration unveiled the new global duties under the Trade Act’s rarely used Section 122 — a clause that had never previously served as the basis for a U.S. tariff policy.
The states involved in the lawsuit span a wide political map: 22 have Democratic attorneys general, while Pennsylvania and Kentucky joined the challenge through their Democratic governors despite having Republican attorneys general.
They are asking the court to block the tariffs entirely and require the federal government to refund any duties collected under the disputed authority.
Meanwhile, the same trade court is already dealing with an avalanche of litigation from companies seeking reimbursement for earlier tariffs imposed under emergency powers. Businesses are pursuing claims tied to more than $130 billion in payments made before the Supreme Court’s ruling, adding further pressure to a legal system now deeply entangled in the country’s evolving trade policy.
