Twelve states have marched into federal court, calling foul on Donald Trump’s sweeping import tariffs and accusing him of warping emergency powers into a personal trade weapon. At the center of the courtroom clash: a 10% blanket tariff Trump unleashed on virtually all foreign goods, framed as a counteroffensive against U.S. trade deficits and fentanyl trafficking.
But the states—led by New York, Illinois, Oregon, and joined by nine others—aren’t buying it. In filings before the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan, they claim the former president has misused a Cold War-era law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), turning it into what they call a “blank check” for trade war theater.
IEEPA was never meant for economic grandstanding, the states argue—it’s for real, immediate national threats. But Trump, they say, used it to steamroll Congress, sidestep global norms, and gamble U.S. trade policy on headline-grabbing tactics. Oregon’s attorney insisted in court that the law doesn’t allow tariffs as a blunt-force bargaining chip. “This isn’t a free-for-all,” he said. “Emergency powers don’t mean unlimited powers.”
The Justice Department, defending Trump’s tariffs, countered that the president’s maneuver was well within the law. “Pressure is the point,” said one government attorney. “This gives him leverage to make deals.”
But the panel of judges wasn’t exactly nodding along. Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee, pressed hard: if courts can’t review presidential actions under IEEPA, where exactly is the limit? Could the White House slap on any trade restriction under the guise of an emergency—no matter how far-fetched?
On the other hand, Judge Gary Katzmann, appointed under Obama, wondered aloud if the judiciary was veering into foreign policy territory, questioning whether the court should become a “backseat driver” to presidential strategy.
Behind all this legal volleying is a policy rollercoaster that’s left U.S. markets whiplashed. After February tariffs aimed at China, Mexico, and Canada—ostensibly to curb fentanyl flows—Trump escalated again in April, levying broad duties on all imports, with steeper penalties for top trade deficit offenders like China. Days later, some of those tariffs were abruptly rolled back or watered down. The White House called it recalibration; critics called it chaos.
To the coalition of states suing, none of it qualifies as a legitimate emergency response. Trade deficits are economic trends, not ticking bombs, and drug trafficking, they argue, deserves a targeted response—not tariffs that hit everything from electronics to everyday consumer goods.
This case is one of at least seven legal salvos against Trump’s trade crusade. California is battling it out in another court, and a host of small businesses and advocacy groups are making their own challenges. Last week, the same trio of judges heard a separate case from five small companies also seeking to derail the tariffs.
No decision has come down yet, but all eyes are on the Court of International Trade as it weighs how far a president can go when he waves the emergency flag—and how many guardrails, if any, remain. Appeals could rocket this fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
