A coalition of 25 Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration on Monday, saying President Donald Trump overstepped his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs on goods from 60 U.S. trading partners.
The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. Court of International Trade, challenges tariffs of 10% or 12.5% on most goods imported from the affected economies, which the states say together account for 99.4% of U.S. imports.
The states are asking the court to stop the tariffs, declare them illegal and order the refund of the duties paid.
“After losing in the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.
The case centers on the administration’s efforts to maintain Trump’s comprehensive tariff system after courts rejected two previous versions that were based on different laws. The states argue that officials used Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act and concerns about forced labor as an excuse to quickly impose nearly identical global tariffs.
The White House rejected this argument.
“The United States is using its lawful authority to achieve the elimination of inappropriate actions, policies and practices that burden U.S. commerce,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “Another country’s failure to impose and effectively enforce a ban on imports of goods produced using forced labor is inappropriate and burdensome to U.S. commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed.”
“Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally durable tool since the president’s first term, and they continue to be so now,” Desai added.
The government imposed the tariffs after accusing countries and the European Union of failing to stop goods made with forced labor from entering their supply chains.
However, the states’ complaint alleges that U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer expedited investigations in 60 economies, bypassed required country-specific consultations and failed to explain why near-uniform tariff rates were appropriate for economies with very different policies.
“There is no rational connection between the alleged problem of forced labor in international supply chains and the blanket global tariffs imposed by USTR,” the complaint states.
The states argue that Section 301 authorizes trade measures only after an investigation into a particular country’s unfair practices and requires that any resulting tariffs be tailored to stop that behavior.
U.S. trade officials completed the 60 investigations in about two and a half months and grouped the economies into four tariff categories, with the two main tariffs separated by just 2.5 percentage points.
The complaint also alleges that the USTR found no connection between the rates and the spread of goods tainted by forced labor across economies. It also claims that trade officials have not set benchmarks that countries can meet in order to remove the tariffs.
The filing suggests exceptions that states say undermine the government’s case. USTR cited frozen beef from Brazil as one of three examples of goods linked to forced labor, but exempted the product from tariffs.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a statement that the tariffs were “a tax on hard-working families” and said they would drive up the cost of food, household items, building materials and other everyday goods.
The lawsuit also points out the timing of the tariffs. USTR announced it on July 23, a day before temporary tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act were set to expire, allowing Trump’s tariff regime to continue without interruption.
The Supreme Court previously ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize Trump’s previous tariffs. The Commercial Court later rejected the administration’s application of Section 122, although that decision was stayed pending an appeal.
States cite government statements as evidence that the Section 301 outcome was predetermined. After the Supreme Court ruling, Greer said officials would establish alternative trade authorities on an accelerated schedule to “ensure continuity.” According to the complaint, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent later said tariff rates would “go right back to where they were.”
The case is at least the second legal challenge to the new tariffs. Previously, a group of small businesses sued the government, making a similar argument that Trump could not use new legal authority to replicate tariffs invalidated by the Supreme Court.