25 U.S. States File Joint Lawsuit Against Trump Administration to Halt New Round of Import Tariffs

According to foreign media reports, 25 U.S. states have recently filed a joint lawsuit targeting the new round of import tariffs implemented by the Trump administration that took effect in July. The tariffs cover 59 countries and the European Union, with rates ranging from 10% to 12.5% and applying to more than 99% of U.S. imports, affecting major trading partners including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Japan and China.

The plaintiff states argue that this round of tariffs was introduced to replace the previous tariffs ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in February 2026, and that the government is abusing its authority to impose tariffs under the pretext of cracking down on imports of goods produced with forced labor. New York Governor Kathy Hochul noted that the relevant tariffs will drive up prices of daily goods such as food, household items and building materials, directly increasing living costs for ordinary households, and will ultimately translate into extra costs for household daily consumption and business operations, harming the interests of the general public. The states have filed three demands with the U.S. Court of International Trade: to suspend the implementation of the tariffs, to rule the tariffs illegal, and to refund the relevant tariff duties already collected.

After taking office, Trump reversed the U.S.'s long-standing low-tariff policy, invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose double-digit tariffs on almost all countries, claiming that the trade deficit constituted a national emergency. The Supreme Court ruled in February that the law did not authorize the imposition of tariffs, after which the government refunded paid duties to importers and introduced a 10% temporary global tariff as a transition measure, which expired on July 24. This new round of tariffs was introduced under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs or other sanctions on countries engaging in unfair trade practices. Trump invoked this provision to impose tariffs on China during his first term, and those measures withstood subsequent judicial challenges.

This state government lawsuit is not the first of its kind: in July 2026, two similar lawsuits filed by small businesses were already submitted to the Court of International Trade. All relevant lawsuits argue that the government failed to complete the required burden of proof for each involved economy as mandated by Section 301, and also failed to clearly explain how the tariffs will eliminate the forced labor-related trade issues it cited.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai responded to the related queries, stating that the U.S. is using lawful authority to remove the burden on U.S. businesses caused by unfair trade practices. He added that foreign countries' failure to effectively ban imports of goods produced with forced labor has harmed U.S. businesses and workers' rights, an issue that must be addressed. He noted that Section 301 tariffs have had legal durability since Trump's first term and remain applicable at present.

Barry Appleton, law professor and co-director of the International Law Center at New York Law School, analyzed that this round of tariffs marks the Trump administration's third attempt to implement similar global tariffs through different legal provisions, with content almost identical to previous versions, which creates challenges for the government's court defense. Unlike the new legal provisions used in the two previous attempts, Section 301 has decades of application history, with clear procedural restrictions set by Congress including investigation, consultation and public disclosure. The core dispute in this lawsuit will center on whether the government strictly complied with these relevant procedures, and there is no room for procedural pre-judgment of the final ruling.