In a striking display of resistance against federal economic policy, twelve U.S. states have launched a legal challenge to former President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff initiative. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, accuses the Trump administration of executive overreach and undermining the Constitution’s separation of powers. The coalition, led by New York and Oregon, claims the tariffs are causing widespread harm to state economies, businesses, and consumers.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!A Coalition of Opposition
The states involved in the lawsuit include Oregon, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Vermont, Delaware, and New Mexico. Each of these states is governed by Democratic leadership, and their attorneys general argue that the tariffs—imposed without Congressional approval—violate the foundational structure of U.S. governance.
“President Trump has bypassed Congress to unilaterally impose what amounts to a massive tax hike on American families and businesses,” said Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum at a joint press conference. “Our Constitution does not allow one person to wield such unchecked power over our economy.”
Understanding the Tariffs
The Trump administration’s tariff policy, a revived and expanded version of measures enacted during his first term, includes a 10% universal import tax and dramatically higher duties—up to 145%—on goods from specific nations like China. Announced as part of the administration’s “America First Economic Security Agenda,” these tariffs are framed as necessary to protect national interests and reduce trade imbalances.
The tariffs are justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which allows the president to regulate commerce during national emergencies. Trump has argued that the U.S. trade deficit and dependence on foreign manufacturing constitute such an emergency.
Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit
The central legal question raised by the states is whether the IEEPA gives the president the authority to impose tariffs so broadly. The suit argues that:
- Only Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate tariffs and foreign commerce.
- The IEEPA was never intended to be a blanket justification for economic policy decisions.
- The “major questions doctrine”—a recent legal principle cited in several Supreme Court rulings—requires explicit Congressional authorization for policies with vast economic and political significance.
“This is not merely a trade dispute,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “This is about restoring the balance of power in our democracy and ensuring that presidential power is not abused to push through economically destructive decisions.”
Impact on States and Consumers
Each of the plaintiff states detailed how the tariffs are already impacting their economies:
- Agriculture: Farmers in Colorado and Minnesota report export losses due to retaliatory tariffs from trading partners like the EU and China. Crop prices have dropped, and equipment costs have surged.
- Manufacturing: Illinois and New York cite increases in the cost of raw materials like steel and aluminum, hurting domestic manufacturers who rely on global supply chains.
- Retail and Consumer Goods: Retailers in Connecticut and Oregon say prices on imported electronics, furniture, and clothing have spiked by up to 20%, with small businesses bearing the brunt of the increase.
- Energy Sector: Nevada and New Mexico, both investing heavily in solar and renewable energy, say tariffs on imported technology like solar panels are hampering green energy development.
Political Ramifications
The lawsuit lands during a heated 2025 election cycle, where trade and economic sovereignty have become central issues. Trump, who is seeking re-election, has doubled down on the tariffs as essential to restoring American dominance in global markets.
“This is about putting America first and stopping countries like China from exploiting us,” Trump said during a recent rally in Michigan. “We’re going to bring back jobs and factories, whether the liberal states like it or not.”
Republican lawmakers have mostly lined up behind Trump, although a few moderates have expressed concern about the long-term impacts on businesses and global alliances.
Democrats, meanwhile, are using the lawsuit to draw a sharp contrast between Trump’s unilateral economic actions and their own calls for cooperative governance and fiscal responsibility.
Support from Business and Labor Groups
The states are not alone in their opposition. Major trade associations, labor unions, and economic think tanks have either joined the lawsuit as amici or expressed public support:
- The National Retail Federation estimates the tariffs could cost American households an additional $1,000 annually.
- The United Steelworkers Union, surprisingly aligned with some Republican goals in the past, argues the policy is too broad and risks harming unionized manufacturing jobs.
- The Brookings Institution and Peterson Institute for International Economics have both published reports suggesting the tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by up to 0.7% if retaliation escalates.
Historical Parallels
Legal scholars have pointed out that the Trump tariffs mirror controversial actions from past administrations but on a far more aggressive scale. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, often blamed for worsening the Great Depression, is frequently cited as a cautionary tale.
“Tariff wars rarely end well,” said Prof. Linda Chavez, a constitutional scholar at Georgetown Law. “The framers of the Constitution vested the power to impose tariffs in Congress for a reason—it’s a fiscal tool that must be wielded carefully, with consensus and deliberation.”
What’s Next?
The court has set a preliminary hearing for early June 2025. Legal experts expect a fast-tracked process given the economic urgency of the issue. The Biden-appointed judges on the Court of International Trade may be more receptive to arguments about executive overreach, but appeals to the Supreme Court are likely no matter the outcome.
If the lawsuit succeeds, it could not only halt the current tariffs but set a significant precedent limiting presidential powers under the IEEPA and similar statutes. Conversely, a loss could embolden future presidents to implement wide-ranging economic policies without Congressional input.
Conclusion
This lawsuit may prove to be one of the most important constitutional challenges of the post-Trump era. It pits state economies, legal traditions, and the structure of democratic governance against a populist vision of executive authority. As the case unfolds, its outcome could reshape the way America makes economic policy—and redefine the limits of presidential power in the 21st century.
