'We'll see the President in court': 24 States sue Trump over fresh tariffs after Supreme Court setback

Twenty-four U.S. states sued President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday, seeking to block new global tariffs they described as a lawless "end run" around the Constitution and the administration's recent Supreme Court setback. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down a series of tariffs Trump had used his emergency powers to impose, deeming them unconstitutional. Reacting to the ruling, Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose an additional 10% import tax, which he later increased to 15%. 

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, questions the President's authority to invoke Section 122. "As with his unlawful use of IEEPA, the president has once again exercised tariff authority that he does not have — involving a statute that does not authorize the tariffs he has imposed — to upend the constitutional order and bring chaos to the global economy," part of the lawsuit read, CBS News reported. 

California Governor Gavin Newsom called the tariffs "nothing more than a tax on working families." "Trump keeps throwing out illegal, reckless policies, hoping something sticks, while everyday Americans pay the price. Trump's tariffs were overturned by the Supreme Court, so now he's inflicting new tariffs on Californians and all Americans like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. Chaos is not leadership. And we deserve better," he said 

The White House defended the measures as a necessary response to persistent trade imbalances. White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Reuters that the administration is prepared to vigorously defend the president's action in court. Desai said that Trump was using his authority "granted by Congress" to deal with "our country's large and serious balance-of-payments deficits."

The duties under Section 122, effective from February 24, are legally capped at a 150-day window unless Congress acts to extend them. While the administration frames the move as a necessary tool to address balance-of-payments deficits, the application mirrors the previous IEEPA framework by targeting nearly all U.S. imports while specifically excluding 232-subject goods to prevent "stacking" duties.

The proclamation provides exemptions for 13 specific categories, including critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, energy products, and USMCA-compliant articles. However, goods containing American-made components are still subject to the 15% tax upon re-entry. For complex imports like steel or copper derivatives, the Section 122 duties apply specifically to the non-metal portion of the product. 

"California has challenged the illegal imposition of tariffs time and time again because this question matters enormously for Californians who are already struggling with rising costs. For the 60th time since he took office, we'll see the President in court," California Attorney General Bonta said. The coalition led by New York Attorney General Letitia James includes 21 other attorneys general and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

James' office informed in a press release that they believe the tariffs violate the Constitution's separation of powers principle. "Article I clearly gives Congress the power to tax and impose tariffs, and the president does not have the power to impose these kinds of sweeping tariff increases. The lawsuit seeks an order from the United States Court of International Trade declaring the Section 122 tariffs illegal and preventing them from being implemented, as well as an order to refund the states the costs of these tariffs while they were in effect," part of the release read.