A coalition of 25 US states has filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's latest round of tariffs, including duties that affect India and
59 other countries, arguing that the measures are an unlawful attempt to replace tariffs struck down by the US Supreme Court earlier this year. The lawsuit, filed on Monday, comes after the United States imposed fresh tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on imports from 59 countries and the European Union. The Trump administration said the duties targeted countries that had not done enough to prevent imports made with forced labour. The tariffs took effect after temporary import duties introduced following the Supreme Court's February ruling expired in late July. "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," New York Attorney General Letitia James said. The lawsuit was joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
President Donald Trump has argued that higher tariffs are needed to revive American manufacturing. Last year, he departed from decades of US trade policy by imposing broad import tariffs, citing the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and describing the country's long-running trade deficit as a national emergency.
However, the US Supreme Court ruled in February that IEEPA did not authorise the president to impose tariffs. The decision required the administration to refund importers who had paid the duties.
Following that ruling, the administration introduced temporary worldwide tariffs of 10%, but those expired on 24 July.
The latest tariffs have instead been imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to levy import duties and other sanctions against countries found to engage in unfair trade practices.
Trump also relied on Section 301 during his first term to impose tariffs on Chinese imports, which survived legal challenges. The White House said the new measures were legally justified.
"The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce," White House spokesman Kush Desai said.
"A foreign country's failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens 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 remain so now."
The states' lawsuit follows two separate legal challenges filed in July by small businesses in the US Court of International Trade.
Those lawsuits argue that the administration failed to demonstrate how each targeted country met the legal threshold required under Section 301 or explain how the tariffs would eliminate the alleged unfair trade practices.
Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School's Center for International Law, said the latest legal challenge reflects concerns that the administration has repeatedly sought to impose similar worldwide tariffs under different legal authorities.
He said the tariffs' "nearly copy-pasted" nature could complicate the government's defence.
However, he noted that Section 301 differs from the statutes used previously because it has an established legal history.
"Presidents have used it for decades, and Congress built it with real guardrails: investigation, consultation, a public record," he said.
"The government's defense won't be 'I had no power to do this.' It will be, 'I stayed inside the lines Congress drew.' That is a real fight, not a formality, and it is the one that will decide this case."
