A coalition of 25 Democratic-led states filed suit against the Trump administration Monday in the US Court of International Trade, arguing that the president’s latest round of global tariffs is an illegal attempt to recreate a tariff regime that federal courts have already struck down twice. The complaint challenges the 10% to 12.5% tariffs imposed on goods from 60 trading partners — economies that together account for 99.4% of all US imports — and asks the court to halt the tariffs, declare them unlawful, and order refunds of duties already paid.
“After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The White House rejected the lawsuit’s premise. “The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies and practices that burden US commerce,” said spokesperson Kush Desai. “Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally durable tool since the president’s first term, and they remain so now.”
The Legal Argument
The case centres on the administration’s use of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a provision allowing trade action against specific countries engaged in unfair practices — which it invoked after courts rejected two previous tariff regimes imposed under different laws. The Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorise Trump’s earlier tariffs. The trade court subsequently rejected the administration’s use of Section 122, a ruling currently on appeal.
The states argue that Section 301 requires an investigation into a specific country’s unfair practices and demands that any resulting tariffs be tailored to address that specific conduct — not applied as a broad global levy. Instead, the US Trade Representative completed investigations into 60 economies in approximately two and a half months, grouped them into four tariff categories with only 2.5 percentage points separating the two main rates, and imposed duties that the complaint describes as nearly uniform regardless of each economy’s actual labour enforcement record.
“There is no rational fit between the purported problem of forced labor in international supply chains and the blanket global tariffs the USTR imposed,” the complaint states.
The states also allege that USTR bypassed required country-specific consultations, failed to explain why near-uniform rates were appropriate for economies with widely different policies, identified no link between the tariff rates and the actual prevalence of forced-labour-tainted goods in each country, and set no benchmarks countries could meet to have the duties lifted.
The complaint points to what it calls telling contradictions in the administration’s own rationale. USTR cited frozen beef from Brazil as one of three examples of goods connected to forced labour — then exempted that product from the tariffs.
The Timing and the Stated Intent
The lawsuit also challenges the timing of the new tariffs. USTR announced them on July 23rd, one day before temporary duties imposed under Section 122 were set to expire — allowing the tariff regime to continue without interruption regardless of the legal status of the earlier authority.
The states cite administration statements as evidence that the Section 301 outcome was predetermined rather than the product of genuine investigation. After the Supreme Court ruling against the earlier tariffs, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said officials would use alternative trade authorities on an “accelerated schedule” to “ensure continuity.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent later said tariff rates would return to “exactly where they were” — language the complaint argues demonstrates the conclusion was decided before the investigation began.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul described the tariffs as “a tax on hardworking families,” saying they would drive up costs for groceries, household essentials, building materials, and other everyday goods.
This lawsuit is at least the second challenge to the new tariffs. A group of small businesses filed a separate suit making similar arguments that Trump cannot use a new legal authority to recreate duties that were invalidated by the Supreme Court. The administration is appealing the earlier Section 122 ruling while simultaneously defending the new Section 301 tariffs against both challenges.
Stay informed. Subscribe to the JournalTodays Newsletter for the latest trade war coverage, US politics news, and business updates delivered straight to your inbox.
