Twenty-four state attorneys general have sued to block President Donald Trump’s 10% global tariffs, taking the fight to the Court of International Trade and setting up another courtroom showdown. The case centers on whether Trump can pivot from the Supreme Court’s rebuke of IEEPA to invoke Section 122 instead, and it promises more legal drama over tariffs that are framed as central to America’s economic defense.
The states filed in the Court of International Trade, led by attorneys general in places like New York, Oregon, California and Arizona, arguing the president exceeded his power. This isn’t just a regional dust-up; it’s a nationwide constitutional test over executive trade authority. Expect rapid briefing and aggressive legal posturing from both sides.
At the heart of the dispute is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which the states say does not authorize the sweeping 10% import duties now in force. They argue the administration is trying to “sidestep” last month’s 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that blocked the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. That ruling forced the White House to find a new legal route quickly, and Section 122 became the fallback.
After the Supreme Court decision, the White House immediately invoked Section 122 to keep the duties in place and signaled plans to raise some tariffs from 10% to 15% for certain countries. The states contend this move is part of a broader pattern. They even charge that the president “has made clear that he is going to impose worldwide tariffs by any means necessary” and paint the effort as unchecked executive expansion.
The states leveled a blunt constitutional critique as well: “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,” they added. That language frames the fight as a defense of separation of powers and international stability, and it will be the centerpiece of their briefings.
From a Republican perspective, however, the policy goal matters: Trump has made tariffs a signature economic strategy, arguing they protect American jobs and industry. He has embraced the “Tariff Man” label and called the issue “life or death” for the U.S. economy, pushing a narrative that tariffs are a tool to fix trade imbalances and revive manufacturing. Supporters see this suit as political theater aimed at blocking a popular protective measure.
The legal road so far has been bumpy. Two federal courts previously blocked the administration’s use of IEEPA, and the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade ruled last year that the president does not have “unbounded authority” under the emergency law. Those decisions forced the White House to pivot and cemented the case’s path back into litigation as the administration tests Section 122’s limits.
Section 122 allows tariffs to stay in place for up to 150 days without congressional approval, which buys the administration time but not permanence. Senate Democrats have already signaled opposition to extending broad import duties, with promises to block extensions on the floor. That political fight is likely to run alongside the court battles, meaning Congress and the courts together will shape trade policy in the months ahead.
Economists differ on the premise driving the policy fight, and the states challenge the administration’s view on deficits directly: “Contrary to the Section 122 Proclamation, a trade deficit is not a balance of payments deficit,” the states argued in their lawsuit. University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers put it plainly last year: “We have a dollar deficit, but we have a stuff surplus,” he said, noting that Americans often choose the goods they import and that trade balances aren’t the whole story.
The next phase will be intense: expect robust defense from the White House and Justice Department and likely appeals that keep the tariffs and the law itself under national scrutiny. With industry and workers watching closely, the legal outcome will determine whether these duties survive as a central feature of the administration’s economic playbook.
