Twenty-five states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, contesting recent tariffs imposed on a wide range of imports. These tariffs are described as a strategy to replace those previously struck down by the Supreme Court. A month prior, the United States implemented tariffs on imports from 59 countries and the European Union, aimed at products produced with forced labor. These measures coincided with the expiration of previous temporary tariffs set after the Supreme Court’s decision.
New York Attorney General Letitia James stated that the administration is attempting to unjustly raise taxes through these tariffs. States involved in the lawsuit include Arizona, California, Colorado, and others. The Trump administration argues that high tariffs are crucial for revitalizing American manufacturing. Last year, the administration veered from a long-standing U.S. policy favoring lower tariffs, using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariff increases.
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling clarified that IEEPA does not grant the power to impose tariffs, leading to refunds for importers. Seeking an alternative, Trump instituted 10% temporary global tariffs, which expired on July 24. The latest tariffs fall under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, allowing the U.S. to impose import taxes in response to unfair trade practices. Trump had previously used Section 301 to levy tariffs on Chinese imports.
“The United States is using its lawful authority to address unreasonable acts that burden U.S. commerce,” stated White House spokesman Kush Desai. “Failure to enforce prohibition on imports made with forced labor is unreasonable and affects U.S. workers.”
Section 301 tariffs have been a consistent tool since Trump’s first term and continue to be utilized. The current lawsuit is one of several challenging these tariffs. A prior lawsuit in The Court of International Trade claimed inadequate justification for tariffs on specific economies. Barry Appleton, co-director at New York Law School’s Center for International Law, notes that Section 301 has seen usage before, unlike previous statutes used for tariffs.
During Trump’s first term, Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports withstood legal scrutiny. Appleton highlights that Section 301 involves established procedures, including investigations and consultations, providing substantive grounds for the government’s position, rather than legal formalities.