A dozen U.S. states have filed a lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump’s tariffs, claiming that the president exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing the levies without Congressional approval.
The case, led by New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James, was filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade. The lawsuit argues that Congress alone holds the power to impose tariffs, and President Trump unlawfully invoked emergency powers under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to bypass legislative approval.
Constitutional Clash Over Trade Powers
“By claiming the authority to impose immense and ever-changing tariffs on whatever goods entering the United States he chooses, for whatever reason he finds convenient to declare an emergency, the President has upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy,” the lawsuit reads.
The plaintiffs argue that IEEPA has never been used by any president to impose tariffs, and that Trump’s use of it to justify duties on imports from China, Mexico, Canada, and others represents an unprecedented abuse of executive authority.
IEEPA was designed to allow the president to respond to extraordinary foreign threats—but only after declaring a national emergency. Trump has cited such emergencies as justification for his tariffs, particularly regarding illegal migration and fentanyl flows, as well as a ballooning trade deficit.
White House Defends Tariff Authority
White House spokesman Kush Desai responded strongly to the lawsuit, accusing Letitia James and others of “prioritizing a witch hunt against President Trump over protecting the safety and wellbeing of their constituents.”
Desai added, “This administration remains committed to using its full legal authority to confront the distinct national emergencies our country is currently facing—both the scourge of illegal migration and fentanyl flows across our border and the exploding annual U.S. goods trade deficit.”
Tariff Fallout and “Liberation Day”
On April 2, Trump announced a sweeping set of “reciprocal” tariffs during an event dubbed “Liberation Day”, triggering sharp reactions in global markets. Amid backlash, the administration introduced a 90-day pause and lowered the tariff rate to 10% for most countries—excluding China.
China has faced the harshest tariffs—currently set at 145%—which Trump defended as a necessary response to Beijing’s “lack of respect” and retaliation. “I hope we can make a deal soon,” Trump said on Wednesday, while still standing by the high tariff rate.
The administration has also levied 25% tariffs on select imports from Mexico and Canada, despite previously negotiated trade pacts like USMCA.
More Legal Challenges Mount
California has also filed its own lawsuit against the administration, and several other states are expected to join the legal challenge. The mounting lawsuits reflect growing concern over the economic and constitutional implications of Trump’s trade war approach.
Critics warn that unchecked use of emergency powers for trade policy could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations and undermine Congressional oversight.
Next Steps
The U.S. Court of International Trade will now review the coalition’s legal challenge. If the court rules against the administration, it could force a rollback of the tariffs and reshape the scope of presidential authority over international trade.
With global markets already on edge and diplomatic tensions high, the outcome of this case could significantly influence the course of U.S. economic and foreign policy in the months ahead.
Categories: U.S. Politics, Trade & Economy, Legal Affairs, Trump Administration
Tags: Trump, tariffs, Letitia James, US trade policy, IEEPA, New York Attorney General, international trade, China trade war, California lawsuit, national emergency powers
