A coalition of 25 Democratic-led states has initiated a new legal challenge against the Trump administration's latest round of import tariffs. The lawsuit, filed on Monday in the US Court of International Trade in New York, targets duties ranging from 10% to 12.5% on goods from 60 trading partners, including the European Union and India, which took effect last month.
The states contend that the Trump administration is deliberately sidestepping a series of previous court decisions that invalidated similar broad tariff measures. They allege the administration is now relying on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute typically reserved for specific unfair trade practices, as a pretext to reimpose sweeping duties that courts have already deemed unlawful under other legal bases.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield voiced strong criticism, stating, "Despite losing every step of the way, Trump is trying yet again to inflict more chaos on working families and homegrown Oregon businesses." The states argue that Section 301 was never intended for such a wide-ranging application, covering nearly all US imports.
The administration has framed these tariffs as a response to trading partners perceived as not doing enough to prevent exports made with forced labor. India, for example, saw its tariff rate reduced from an initial 12.5% to 10% after reportedly strengthening its own enforcement measures against forced labor. Certain categories of goods, such as oil, natural gas, fertilizers, and products covered by the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, were exempted.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer defended the measures upon their announcement. "The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it's well past time for our trading partners to do the same," Greer remarked.
This marks the third distinct legal strategy employed by the Trump administration to implement broad import duties following successive legal setbacks. Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not grant the president authority for such wide-ranging tariffs. Subsequently, a pivot to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 for temporary worldwide tariffs was also ruled unlawful by the Court of International Trade.
Critics highlight that while Trump's first-term Section 301 tariffs on China withstood legal challenges, they did so because they targeted a specific country for specific practices. Applying the same provision on a near-global scale, they argue, stretches the law far beyond its intended scope. Despite these legal headwinds, the Trump administration has consistently championed tariffs as a vital tool for boosting US manufacturing and rebalancing global trade.