Politics

12 States Sue Trump Administration Over New Tariffs on Foreign Imports

In a bold move that has sparked national attention, twelve U.S. states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the legality of newly imposed tariffs on foreign imports. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York on April 23, 2025, argues that President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff policies overstep his authority and are causing economic turmoil across the country. The states involved—Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont—claim the tariffs are unconstitutional and harmful to American consumers and businesses. This legal battle could have far-reaching consequences for the U.S. economy, trade relations, and the balance of power between the president and Congress.

What Are the Tariffs About?

Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has issued several executive orders imposing tariffs on goods imported from various countries. These include a 145% tariff on products from China, a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico, and a 10% tariff on imports from most other countries. On April 2, 2025, dubbed “Liberation Day” by Trump, he announced “reciprocal tariffs” on nearly all U.S. trading partners, citing national emergencies like illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and trade deficits. These tariffs were enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that allows the president to take economic actions during national emergencies.

However, the twelve states argue that Trump’s use of the IEEPA is unlawful. They claim that trade deficits and other issues cited by the administration do not constitute a genuine national emergency. The lawsuit asserts that only Congress has the constitutional authority to impose tariffs, as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The states argue that Trump’s actions bypass this authority, creating economic chaos and raising costs for American families and businesses.

“By claiming the authority to impose immense and ever-changing tariffs on whatever goods entering the United States he chooses, for whatever reason he finds convenient to declare an emergency, the President has upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy,” the lawsuit states.

Why Are the States Suing?

The coalition of states, led by Democratic attorneys general including New York’s Letitia James and Oregon’s Dan Rayfield, argues that Trump’s tariffs are not only illegal but also economically reckless. They point out that no other president in the nearly five decades since the IEEPA was enacted has used it to impose tariffs. The states claim that Trump’s justification—labeling trade deficits and other issues as national emergencies—lacks legal grounding and sets a dangerous precedent.

New York Attorney General Letitia James emphasized the economic impact, stating, “Donald Trump promised that he would lower prices and ease the cost of living, but these illegal tariffs will have the exact opposite effect on American families. His tariffs are unlawful and if not stopped, they will lead to more inflation, unemployment, and economic damage.” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes called the tariff scheme “insane” and “economically reckless,” highlighting the potential harm to consumers and businesses.

The lawsuit also seeks to block four specific executive orders signed by Trump that imposed tariffs on China, Canada, Mexico, and other countries. It argues that these orders violate the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies implement policies. The states are asking the court to declare the tariffs illegal and to prevent government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, from enforcing them.

Economic Impact of the Tariffs

The tariffs have already caused significant disruptions in the U.S. economy. Experts estimate that they could increase the cost of living for the average American family by more than $3,800 per year. Businesses, especially small ones, are feeling the pinch. For example, a New York-based wine and spirits importer and a Virginia-based maker of educational kits are among the businesses that have reported significant financial strain due to the tariffs.

The trade war with China has been particularly contentious. After Trump imposed a 145% tariff on Chinese goods, China retaliated with a 125% tariff on U.S. goods, escalating tensions and threatening global trade stability. Retailers have warned that the ongoing trade war could lead to price increases and product shortages within weeks, particularly for goods like furniture, toys, apparel, and sports equipment.

The tariffs have also strained relations with key trading partners like Canada and Mexico, both part of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). While Trump temporarily paused some tariffs on these countries to allow for negotiations, the 25% tariffs on their goods remain a point of contention. Canada has responded with retaliatory tariffs on U.S. vehicles, and Mexico is under pressure to address immigration and drug trafficking issues to avoid further levies.

Broader Implications and Legal Challenges

The lawsuit is part of a broader wave of legal challenges against Trump’s tariff policies. In addition to the twelve states, California filed a separate lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, claiming that the tariffs could cost the state billions in revenue as the nation’s largest importer. Small businesses and advocacy groups, such as the Liberty Justice Center, have also filed lawsuits, arguing that Trump’s actions harm their ability to operate and violate constitutional principles.

On May 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade issued a significant ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in two related cases, blocking most of Trump’s tariffs. The court found that the president overstepped his authority under the IEEPA and that the Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. This ruling, if upheld, could severely limit Trump’s ability to impose tariffs unilaterally, though the administration has vowed to continue using “every tool at its disposal” to address trade deficits and other issues.

What’s Next?

The outcome of the lawsuit could redefine the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress when it comes to trade policy. If the court rules in favor of the states, it could invalidate Trump’s tariffs and require congressional approval for future trade actions. However, the Trump administration remains defiant, with White House spokesperson Kush Desai calling the lawsuit a “witch hunt” and defending the tariffs as necessary to protect American industries and address national emergencies like illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking.

For now, American consumers and businesses are caught in the crossfire of this legal and economic battle. The tariffs have already led to higher prices for goods ranging from electronics to clothing, and the uncertainty surrounding their future is causing anxiety for industries reliant on global supply chains. As the lawsuit moves forward, all eyes will be on the U.S. Court of International Trade to see whether it will curb Trump’s tariff agenda or allow it to continue reshaping the U.S. economy.

Why This Matters to You

For everyday Americans, the tariffs could mean higher prices for everything from groceries to electronics. Small business owners, like those importing goods from China or Canada, face tough choices about raising prices or absorbing losses. The lawsuit represents a critical effort to hold the administration accountable and protect the economy from what many see as impulsive and harmful policies. Whether you’re a consumer, a business owner, or simply someone concerned about the future of U.S. trade, this legal battle is one to watch.