A coalition of 25 Democratic-led U.S. states sued the Trump administration, arguing that the latest tariffs on imports from 60 trading partners unlawfully exceed the president’s authority to impose import taxes.
On Monday, a coalition of states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York challenging President Donald Trump‘s latest tariffs, joining similar legal action by small U.S. businesses. The lawsuit was filed by states including Oregon and New York, all led by Democratic attorneys general or governors.
The latest global tariffs were imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law used to counter unfair trade practices. While previous administrations applied Section 301 to specific countries or industries, lawsuits from states and small businesses argue that Trump’s sweeping tariffs on over 99% of U.S. imports are unprecedented.
The states argued that the new tariffs unlawfully reused “forced labor” as a justification to reinstate duties that courts had already ruled illegal. They also said broad import taxes would not effectively address the underlying issue of forced labor worldwide.
“Despite losing every step of the way, Trump is trying yet again to inflict more chaos on working families and homegrown Oregon businesses,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement to Reuters.
Meanwhile, White House spokesman Kush Desai said the U.S. is lawfully using its authority to address practices that burden American businesses, arguing that countries failing to curb imports made with forced labor are acting unreasonably and must address the issue.
Trump Defends New Tariff Strategy
The Trump administration imposed new tariffs of 10% and 12.5% on 60 trading partners, including the European Union, on July 23, citing concerns over forced labor. The new duties took effect as a previous 10% global tariff expired. The tariffs apply to 99.4% of U.S. imports, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).
Last week, Trump said his administration’s newly imposed tariffs are effectively the same as those the Supreme Court previously ruled illegal, but implemented through more complex legal avenues after the court’s decision. He also dismissed concerns about short-term economic impacts, claiming the tariffs have generated significant revenue for the U.S. and helped prevent conflicts.
Meanwhile, legal experts say tariffs imposed under Section 301 are more likely to survive court challenges because the law explicitly authorizes them. They also argue that measures targeting forced labor give the administration broad flexibility, with one expert, Nick Baker, co-lead of the Trade and Customs practice at Kroll, expecting the new tariff framework to become the long-term standard for U.S. trade policy.
Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.
Image via Shutterstock
Recent Comments