A coalition of 25 Democratic-led U.S. states has opened another front in the legal battle over President Donald Trump’s trade policy, filing a lawsuit that seeks to block his latest package of global tariffs. The states argue that the administration has once again stretched presidential authority beyond the limits set by U.S. trade legislation.
Another Court Challenge to Broad Import Duties
The case, brought before the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, follows a series of lawsuits filed by businesses that were directly affected by earlier tariff measures.
Although several courts have already ruled against previous tariff programmes introduced during Trump’s second term, the administration has continued to introduce new import duties using different legal mechanisms. The latest lawsuit argues that changing the legal basis does not resolve the underlying constitutional and statutory concerns surrounding the measures.
July Measures Expanded Tariffs to 60 Trading Partners
The disputed tariffs were announced on 24 July 2026, introducing import duties of 10% and 12.5% on goods from 60 countries and trading partners, including the European Union.
According to the White House, the measures are intended to encourage foreign governments to strengthen efforts against goods produced with forced labour entering international supply chains. The new tariffs replaced an earlier temporary global tariff and now apply to products representing virtually the entire volume of U.S. imports.
Scope of Section 301 Faces New Scrutiny
Unlike previous tariff rounds that relied on emergency economic powers, the current measures are based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The plaintiffs do not dispute that Section 301 can be used to respond to unfair foreign trade practices. Instead, they argue that its historical application has been focused on specific countries, products or sectors rather than imposing blanket tariffs across dozens of trading partners simultaneously.
The states further contend that concerns about forced labour are being used as the legal justification for reinstating tariffs that courts have previously rejected under different statutory authorities.
Continuing Dispute Over Presidential Trade Powers
The latest lawsuit builds on a broader debate over the limits of executive authority in trade policy.
Earlier judicial decisions concluded that previous attempts to introduce sweeping tariffs under emergency powers exceeded the authority granted by Congress. Rather than abandoning the policy, the administration shifted to a different legislative framework, setting the stage for another round of litigation.
The White House maintains that the tariffs are a lawful response to foreign trade practices that disadvantage American businesses and workers, while the plaintiffs argue that such wide-ranging import duties require clearer congressional authorisation.
Why It Matters
The outcome of the case could shape the future use of Section 301 as a trade policy tool.
A ruling against the administration would further define the limits of presidential authority to impose economy-wide tariffs and could influence future U.S. trade actions regardless of which administration is in office. For multinational businesses, importers and global supply chains, the litigation adds another layer of uncertainty to an already evolving U.S. customs and trade landscape.