A coalition of 25 Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit on Monday against the Trump administration over sweeping new tariffs of 10% to 12.5% imposed on goods from 60 major trading partners, including the United Kingdom, Japan, Brazil, Taiwan, China, and the European Union. The suit was filed in the US Court of International Trade, with states including New York and Oregon arguing that the administration exceeded its legal authority and that the tariffs are "arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law."

The new tariffs, which took effect in late July, were imposed under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act — legislation designed to allow the president to sanction countries found to engage in unfair trade practices. The Trump administration justified the levies by alleging that these trading partners had failed to adequately prevent the importation of goods produced with forced labour. The duties are strikingly broad, covering 99.4% of all US imports. White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the measures, saying: "The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden US commerce."

The lawsuit, however, argues that the forced-labour rationale is a pretext — an attempt to resurrect tariffs that were already ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court. In a landmark February ruling, the Court found that Trump's earlier sweeping tariffs, imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) on the grounds that America's trade deficit constituted a national emergency, had no legal basis. That decision forced the administration to issue refunds to importers. Trump then turned to temporary 10% worldwide tariffs, but those expired on 24 July. The new Section 301 tariffs were rolled out immediately afterwards. New York Attorney General Letitia James was blunt: "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."

The states' legal complaint echoes arguments made in two earlier suits brought by small businesses, contending that a blanket tax on nearly all US imports would do nothing to meaningfully address forced labour globally. The Trump administration maintains that Section 301 tariffs have withstood legal scrutiny before — Trump successfully used the same legal tool to impose large tariffs on China during his first term.

The case goes to the heart of a broader struggle over presidential trade authority. Trump has sought to use tariffs as a central instrument of economic policy, arguing they will revive American manufacturing and rebalance trade relationships that he views as unfair. Critics, including the suing states, say the approach amounts to an illegal tax on consumers and businesses, and that the administration is simply searching for new legal vehicles after its earlier strategy was rejected by the nation's highest court.