12 US States Sue Trump Over Alleged Abuse of Tariff Powers

States File Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Use of Tariff Authority

Recently, according to media reports, the US Court of International Trade in New York opened hearings on a lawsuit jointly filed by 12 states — Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont — against the Trump administration. The lawsuit alleges that the administration abused its authority when imposing additional import tariffs.

National Emergency Claim Under IEEPA Sparks Controversy

The plaintiffs argue that former President Trump invoked a "national emergency" and used the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports. They claim this move overstepped presidential powers, violated the intent of the law, and severely disrupted the US economy.

Focus on “Liberation Day” Tariff Action

The core controversy centers on the "Liberation Day" tariff action announced by Trump on April 2. Citing the long-standing US trade deficit as a national emergency, Trump used IEEPA to impose a 10% tariff on most imports and a "reciprocal" tariff of up to 50% on imports from countries with large trade surpluses with the US, such as China. This action followed a separate round of tariffs imposed in February on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada, which Trump claimed were necessary to combat illegal immigration and the flow of fentanyl.

State Attorneys Argue Misuse of Emergency Powers

The state attorneys general argue that the US has run a trade deficit for 49 consecutive years — a long-term economic trend that does not constitute an "extraordinary and unusual threat" under the IEEPA's national emergency criteria. Oregon's lead attorney, Brian Marshall, stated during the hearing that treating IEEPA as a "blank check" would allow the president to impose tariffs without judicial oversight, lacking any legal basis.

Trump Administration Cites Historical Precedent

In defense, the Trump administration cited a 1971 precedent in which President Nixon imposed tariffs under the Trading with the Enemy Act during an economic crisis, arguing that the president holds similar powers under IEEPA during a national emergency.

DOJ Defends Presidential Authority Under IEEPA

Brett Shumate, US Deputy Assistant Attorney General, argued that the president is authorized under IEEPA to implement tariff actions as a tool for advancing international trade negotiations and foreign policy. He emphasized that while the IEEPA does not explicitly mention the word "tariff," it empowers the president to "investigate, regulate, or prohibit" international transactions.

Judges Question Scope of Presidential Tariff Powers

The three-judge panel hearing the case posed questions to both sides. Judge Jane Restani, appointed by former President Reagan, questioned whether the court’s inability to review a presidential emergency declaration would leave the country vulnerable to "reckless" decisions. Meanwhile, Judge Gary Katzmann, appointed by former President Obama, asked whether courts should remain "passive" in matters of foreign policy.

Multiple Related Lawsuits Filed Nationwide

In addition to this 12-state joint lawsuit, California has filed a separate suit in federal court in San Francisco, and at least five other similar cases have been brought by businesses, legal advocacy groups, and members of the Blackfeet Nation. Last week, the same judicial panel also heard a related case brought by five small businesses challenging the tariffs. The court is expected to issue rulings on these cases in the coming weeks.

Economic Impact and Possible Supreme Court Review

Since their implementation, Trump's tariff policies have caused volatility in US financial markets. Many economists have revised down US growth forecasts, although the broader economic impact remains unclear.

Trump has defended his tariffs as a tool to "revitalize American manufacturing," while opponents argue that the measures circumvent proper legal procedures and disrupt both the US economic order and international trade rules.

Given that the case touches on presidential powers, national security, and the legal boundaries of international economic policy, the ultimate ruling may be escalated to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, or even the US Supreme Court.

Conclusion

As trade policies and international tariff regulations continue to evolve, businesses engaged in global commerce must stay informed and adaptable. At Forest Shipping, we are committed to helping importers and exporters navigate complex trade environments with reliable, compliant shipping solutions. Whether you're importing goods from China or managing cross-border logistics, our expert team is here to support your business every step of the way.