A coalition of 24 U.S. states has jointly filed a lawsuit against the federal government, accusing former President Donald Trump of unilaterally imposing import tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 without explicit authorization from Congress, thereby violating the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The lawsuit targets the previously announced 10% global tariff and planned increases to 15%.
Previously, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February by a 6-3 vote that the Trump administration's emergency tariff measures, implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, lacked legal basis. The court explicitly stated that the President does not have the authority to impose taxes without congressional approval. The suing states argue that Trump's actions are similar to the previous abuse of IEEPA, disrupting the constitutional order and causing global supply chain instability, exacerbating economic uncertainty.
In their complaint, the state governments emphasize that the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to formulate trade policy, with the President only able to exercise limited trade management functions under explicit congressional authorization. The imposition of these tariffs was not approved by the legislature and constitutes an overreach of power. They are requesting the U.S. Court of International Trade to declare these tariffs invalid and demand that the federal government compensate the states for economic losses resulting from the tariff policy.
While the White House argues that the tariffs are intended to promote fair trade, attract domestic investment, and increase fiscal revenue, and that U.S. tariff and related revenues are projected to reach $287 billion in 2025, a 192% increase from the previous year, the states contend that fiscal benefits cannot justify circumventing constitutional procedures.
This legal battle once again highlights the tension between executive and legislative powers in U.S. trade policy, and its final ruling may have a profound impact on the boundaries of presidential power in the trade arena.