A coalition of 25 U.S. states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the Trump administration's new 10% to 12.5% Section 301 tariffs on 60 economies. The states allege the White House used a rushed forced-labor probe as a pretext to bypass prior court rulings.
WASHINGTON — A coalition of 25 U.S. states filed a lawsuit against the Donald Trump administration in the U.S. Court of International Trade on August 3, 2026, seeking to strike down sweeping import tariffs of 10% to 12.5% levied on 60 partner economies. Led by New York Attorney General Letitia James and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the legal challenge asserts that the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducted a rushed, pretextual investigation into forced labor to unlawfully resurrect global import taxes previously invalidated by federal courts. The dispute marks a major legal test for executive authority over trade policy, as states warn that the new duties threaten to raise costs for households and businesses nationwide.
Legal Challenge to Section 301 Tariff Authority
The lawsuit challenges action taken under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the U.S. government to impose duties against foreign nations engaging in unreasonable or discriminatory trade practices. The new duties—ranging from 10% to 12.5%—took effect following the expiration of temporary Section 122 surcharges on July 24, 2026, and apply to 59 countries alongside the European Union, representing 99.4% of total U.S. import volume.
According to the complaint filed in New York, the USTR completed its forced-labor review in two and a half months—a process that historically requires eight to twelve months. The plaintiff states allege that the administration predetermined the outcome to replace previous tariffs enacted under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional earlier in the year.
| Case Details | Legal Summary |
| Court Venue | U.S. Court of International Trade (New York) |
| Plaintiffs | 25 U.S. States and Commonwealths |
| Defendants | President Donald Trump, USTR Jamieson Greer, USTR, U.S. Customs and Border Protection |
| Statutory Authority Cited | Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 |
| Tariff Rates In Dispute | 10% to 12.5% across 60 global economies |
Economic Scope and State Allegations
The state attorneys general argue that the executive branch violated constitutional principles by usurping Congress’s sole authority to levy taxes and tariffs. In addition to New York and California, plaintiff states include Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, alongside the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
The complaint details how the tariffs apply uniform rates across diverse economies regardless of localized labor laws or enforcement history. For instance, states noted that Mexico—which maintains a USMCA-backed import ban on goods produced via forced labor—was assigned the same base tariff rate as nations with significantly lower regulatory standards.
Executive Branch Defense and White House Position
Responding to the lawsuit, the White House defended the legality and necessity of the Section 301 measures. Administration officials maintained that foreign governments' failure to eliminate forced labor burdens American market participants and suppresses domestic wages.
White House representatives reiterated that Section 301 remains a legally durable mechanism designed to protect American workers and eliminate unfair foreign trade practices. Government attorneys are expected to request that the U.S. Court of International Trade dismiss the suit, maintaining that statutory trade authority grants the executive branch broad discretion over trade enforcement.
Official Sources Section
Legal filings, statutory citations, and official state statements were compiled from public filings accessible via the U.S. Court of International Trade, trade notices issued by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), litigation releases from the New York Attorney General Office, and executive updates provided by the White House.
Official Quote Section
According to official court documents and state announcements, the plaintiff states contend that executive action exceeded statutory boundaries.
New York Attorney General Letitia James stated, "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. No matter how the administration tries to justify it, the law and our Constitution are clear that the president does not have the power to impose sweeping tariffs on whatever countries he wants."
White House spokesman Kush Desai stated, "The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce. Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally durable tool since the President's first term, and they remain so now."
Why It Matters
The outcome of this lawsuit carries direct economic consequences for U.S. consumers, supply chains, and international trade relationships. If the U.S. Court of International Trade grants an injunction, companies could avoid billions in import duties on consumer goods, electronics, and construction raw materials. Conversely, if upheld, the tariffs will establish a permanent trade baseline across 60 global economies.
Key Facts at a Glance
25 States Litigating: A bipartisan group of 25 states and governors filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Statutory Mechanism: Challenges 10% to 12.5% duties imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Global Scope: Duties target 50-plus trading partners and the EU, covering 99.4% of U.S. imports.
Legal Argument: Plaintiffs assert the administration used a rushed forced-labor review as a pretext to circumvent court defeats.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why are 25 states suing the Trump administration over tariffs?
The coalition of 25 states argues that the administration used a rushed forced-labor investigation as an illegal pretext under Section 301 to reimpose sweeping global tariffs that courts had previously invalidated.
Which court is hearing the lawsuit against the new tariffs?
The lawsuit was formally filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade located in New York City.
What tariff rates are currently in effect under the Section 301 order?
The new Section 301 order applies import duties ranging between 10% and 12.5% across 60 economies, covering nearly all U.S. import volume.
Source: Verified legal filings and press statements from the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the New York Attorney General Office, and executive releases from the White House.
