A group of 24 US states announces a lawsuit this Thursday against President Donald Trump’s Administration in the first legal challenge to the 10% global tariffs that the Republican imposed, under an emergency powers law. The plaintiffs allege that the president cannot avoid the recent Supreme Court ruling “by invoking new legal authority.”
Democratic-led states, including New York, California and Oregon, argue that — which Trump announced immediately after the high court ruling on February 20 — are also illegal. The tariffs were imposed for 150 days under the Trade Act of 1974, which is intended to address short-term monetary emergencies, not the usual trade deficits that occur when a wealthy nation like the United States imports more than it exports, according to the states’ lawsuit, which will be filed in the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade.
The Democratic attorneys general and governors participating in the lawsuit argue that Trump is exceeding his duties with the 15% tariffs that he plans to apply to much of the world, as an instant response to the Supreme Court’s blow. “Right now we should focus on returning money to people, not doubling illegal tariffs,” as the Supreme Court called them, said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield.
Trump’s Feb. 20 executive order imposed a 10% tariff on imports, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday later this week. Trump has made tariffs a central pillar of his trade and foreign policy in his second term, claiming broad authority to impose tariffs without intervention from Congress. However, on February 20, the Supreme Court dealt him a tough defeat by striking down much of last April’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling that the law did not give him the power he claimed. The battery of tariffs was such that the Republican decided, against practically all the countries of the international community, that, very proud, .
On April 20, Trump responded to the affront by doubling down on his tariff bet. — six of the nine that make up the high court, some of them appointed by him in his first term — announced new levies under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law that, like the emergency powers law, had never before been used to impose tariffs. Aside from the so-called emergency ones, Trump has also imposed other more common tariffs on imports such as cars, steel and aluminum, under more traditional legal authority. The latter are safer from legal challenges.
The states that have filed the lawsuit, which also won the one filed against the emergency tariffs, argue that the Trade Act only allows tariffs to be imposed to address a balance of payments deficit, something that last occurred during the presidency of Republican Richard Nixon, when the United States abandoned the gold standard.
The Trade Act’s anti-balance of payments deficit measures are primarily intended to address currency risks such as a sudden and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, according to the States. Trump, however, has misapplied that rule in an attempt to address U.S. trade deficits, which occur when a country imports more than it exports.
