US states sue Trump over tariffs

Twenty-five U.S. states sued the Trump administration on August 3 to block a new round of Section 301 tariffs on imports from 59 countries and the European Union. The complaint, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, says the administration unlawfully used forced-labor findings as a basis for tariffs of 10% or 12.5% that took effect last month. The states said the move was an attempt to rebuild a tariff regime that courts had already rejected. The White House said the administration was using lawful authority to address practices that burden U.S. businesses. ### Which states are suing, and where was the case filed? California, New York, Illinois and 22 other states joined the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York. The coalition includes Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. (coag.gov) TIME and the complaint both say the states are led by Democratic attorneys general or governors. The Aug. 3 complaint asks the court to declare the tariff action unlawful, block collection of the duties and order refunds for state agencies that have paid them. The filing says the tariffs were imposed through U.S. Trade Representative notices published on July 23 and July 28. ### What exactly did the administration do? (time.com) The U.S. last month imposed tariffs of 10% or 12.5% on goods from 59 countries and the European Union, arguing those trading partners had failed to do enough to stop imports made with forced labor. AP and the complaint say the administration used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as the legal vehicle for the action. The states argue that Section 301 does not permit the president to impose broad tariffs on that basis in this way. (coag.gov) The complaint says the administration opened a series of country investigations and then moved quickly to tariff action. The states call that process “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law,” while saying they support efforts to combat forced labor itself. ### Why do the states say this is an end-run around earlier rulings? (apnews.com) February is central to the lawsuit. AP, CNBC and other reports say the states argue the new tariffs were designed to replace import taxes that the Supreme Court struck down earlier this year. The complaint describes the new Section 301 actions as a “pretextual and unlawful effort” to restore tariff power that had been curtailed by the courts. (coag.gov) July 24 is another key date. RTÉ reported that the new Section 301 tariffs took effect as a temporary 10% global levy expired. That timing is part of the states’ argument that the administration was substituting one tariff structure for another rather than starting a distinct trade remedy process. ### What is the White House saying in response? (apnews.com) White House spokesman Kush Desai said the administration was “using its lawful authority” to address foreign practices that burden American businesses, according to the BBC report surfaced in search results. DW also reported that the White House insisted the move was legal. The administration has framed the tariffs as a response to failures by trading partners to crack down on forced-labor-linked imports. (rte.ie) New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the officials backing the case, said on X that the administration was “again trying to raise taxes on families and businesses with another round of illegal tariffs,” according to Spectrum News. ### What happens next in court? The U.S. (yahoo.com) Court of International Trade will decide whether to halt the tariffs, invalidate the tariff action and order refunds. The case lands in the same court that has handled much of the recent litigation over Trump-era tariff actions, according to multiple reports. A docket number appears on the complaint posted by the Colorado attorney general’s office, but the next hearing date was not visible in the materials surfaced by search. (spectrumlocalnews.com) Other plaintiffs are also challenging the tariffs. Global News and Insurance Journal reported that small businesses filed similar suits over the same Section 301 duties. That means the Court of International Trade is likely to remain the main venue for the next phase of the dispute. (globalnews.ca) (coag.gov)