Twelve U.S. states have united in a legal challenge aimed at halting President Donald Trump’s controversial tariffs that have disrupted global trade dynamics.
The lawsuit, spearheaded by New York Governor and Attorney General, contends that Trump exceeded his authority by unilaterally imposing the tariffs without congressional consent.
The legal filing, submitted to the United States Court of International Trade, emphasizes that tariff powers are constitutionally vested in Congress.
The White House pushed back, accusing New York Attorney General Letitia James of “prioritizing a witch hunt against President Trump over protecting the safety and wellbeing of their constituents.”
Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the White House, defended the administration’s stance, stating the government was “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.”
Central to the legal argument is Trump’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law enacted in the 1970s. The lawsuit criticizes the move, saying:
“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.”
Trump had cited the IEEPA to justify tariffs against nations including China, Canada, and Mexico.
The act permits presidential action in response to “any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States,” following a national emergency declaration.
However, the plaintiffs argue that the IEEPA does not grant Trump the sweeping powers he claimed. Historical analysis by congressional researchers reveals no previous president has used the law to impose tariffs.
California separately filed its own lawsuit last week, echoing the claim that Trump overstepped his legal boundaries under the IEEPA. Other legal efforts have also taken aim at the same issue.
Trump justified his tariff campaign as a strategy to address the U.S. trade deficit. On April 2, during an event titled “Liberation Day,” he announced sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on multiple nations.
After intense backlash from financial markets, he initiated a 90-day delay on most tariffs and reduced the rate to 10%, with one exception.
China remained under intense scrutiny, as Trump slammed the country for its “lack of respect” and imposed a steep 145% tariff on Chinese imports, intensifying a trade standoff that has shaken global markets.
On Wednesday, Trump expressed optimism about resolving tensions with China but acknowledged that the 145% tariff was “very high.”
Neighboring nations Mexico and Canada have also been hit with 25% tariffs on selected products under the same directive.
