A major legal conflict is unfolding in Washington, touching upon the foundations of US trade policy. On August 3, a coalition of 25 states filed a lawsuit in the Court of International Trade against the administration of President Donald Trump. The plaintiffs argue that the new import tariffs imposed by the White House are illegal and exceed the powers of the head of state.

The essence of the conflict: the return of repealed tariffs

At the heart of the dispute are new tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5%, imposed on goods from 59 countries and the European Union. The administration's official position is that these measures are necessary to combat the use of forced labor in supply chains. As a legal basis, the government is using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

However, representatives of the plaintiff states see this as merely a legal trick. In their opinion, the administration is attempting to reinstate tariffs that were previously repealed by the US Supreme Court in February of this year. New York Attorney General Letitia James stated directly that the White House's current policy is aimed at circumventing the court ban, which will inevitably lead to increased costs for American businesses and higher prices for consumers.

Geography of the protest: who is against?

The lawsuit has united representatives of both Democratic and mixed states, demonstrating a wide spectrum of dissatisfaction with trade policy at the local level. In addition to New York, the coalition includes:

  • California and Washington;
  • Illinois and Pennsylvania;
  • Massachusetts and Michigan;
  • Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, and others.

In total, the list of plaintiffs includes 25 states, including Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Legal context and risks

This lawsuit is the next stage in a series of legal battles surrounding Donald Trump's tariff policy. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that the president does not have the right to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad-scale tariffs. It was after this decision that the White House switched to using Section 301.

Analysts note that Section 301 is indeed a stronger legal basis than IEEPA and is often applied in trade disputes. Nevertheless, experts warn: applying this provision in such a broad context, as the current administration is doing, may encounter serious legal problems in the future. The White House, for its part, insists on the legality of its actions, arguing that the measures are aimed solely at protecting national interests and the ethics of supply chains.