The lawsuit aims to stop the 10 percent tariffs that Trump imposed immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down previously imposed tariffs.
Published March 5, 2026
A group of 24 U.S. states has sued President Donald Trump’s administration in the first legal challenge to his newly imposed 10 percent global tariffs, alleging that the president cannot circumvent a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated most of his previous tariffs on imported goods by citing new legal authority.
The Democratic-led states, including New York, California and Oregon, in Thursday’s lawsuit argue that the new tariffs, which Trump announced immediately after the high court’s Feb. 20 ruling, are also illegal.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Trump has said the tariffs are essential to reducing the United States’ long-standing trade deficits. It imposed tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court struck down tariffs it imposed last year under an emergency powers law.
Section 122, which has never been invoked, allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent. They are limited to five months, unless extended by Congress, and are intended to address short-term monetary emergencies, not routine trade deficits, according to the states’ lawsuit filed with the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade.
The balance of payments deficit measures contained in the Trade Act are primarily intended to address “archaic” currency risks that existed when foreign governments could exchange dollars for gold held by the United States, according to the states. Trump, however, has misapplied that standard in an attempt to address America’s “trade deficits,” which occur when a nation imports more than it exports, according to the states.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said during a news conference that Trump’s latest tariffs are an attempt to “end” collaboration with Congress, as required by the U.S. Constitution.
“Make no mistake about it, President Trump’s signature economic policy is historically unpopular and is costing Americans, our businesses and us as states hundreds of billions of dollars,” Rayfield said. “It can’t continue simply because some of Trump’s lawyers have found a way to twist the words and make a legal argument.”
“The focus should now be on returning people’s money, not doubling illegal tariffs,” he said.
The lawsuit comes a day after a judge ruled that companies that paid tariffs under Trump’s old framework should receive refunds.
central pillar
White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement that the administration will vigorously defend the president’s action in court.
“The president is using the authority granted by Congress to address fundamental international payments issues and address our country’s large and serious balance of payments deficits,” Desai said.
Trump’s Feb. 20 executive order imposed a 10 percent tariff on imports, but U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday those rates would likely rise to 15 percent later this week.
Trump has made tariffs a central pillar of his foreign policy in his second term, claiming broad authority to issue tariffs without the involvement of Congress. But on February 20, the Supreme Court dealt Trump a tough defeat when it struck down a huge swath of tariffs he had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that the law did not give him the power he claimed.
Trump responded by criticizing the judges who ruled against him and announcing new tariffs under Section 122. Trump has also imposed other tariffs on imports such as cars, steel and aluminum, under more traditional legal authority. Those tariffs are safer from legal challenges.
Meanwhile, the court is grappling with about 2,000 lawsuits from companies seeking refunds of more than $130 billion in IEEPA duty payments made by importers before the Supreme Court’s February ruling. On Wednesday, the court ordered U.S. Customs to begin processing tariff refunds.
