New York Attorney General Letitia James and more than 20 other states are suing President Donald Trump to block newly imposed global tariffs after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping tariff agenda last month.
Trump unlawfully imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, according to the Supreme Court. After that decision, the president swiftly raised worldwide tariffs to 15 percent “effective immediately,” citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
A coalition of Democratic states argue in the new suit that the president’s use of that law is similarly illegal.
“Once again, President Trump is ignoring the law and the Constitution to effectively raise taxes on consumers and small businesses,” James said in a statement Thursday.
“After the Supreme Court rejected his first attempt to impose sweeping tariffs, the president is causing more economic chaos and expecting Americans to foot the bill,” she added. “These tariffs will only drive up the cost of living, and I will continue to uphold the rule of law to protect New Yorkers.”
The suit was filed in the U.S. International Court of Trade in Manhattan.
Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act gives the president the power to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent for a maximum of 150 days to address serious “balance-of-payments deficits” or to prevent the “significant depreciation of the dollar” abroad.
James and the coalition of Democratic states say that the president is misusing this statute to bring tariffs. They argue it was created to address specific currency crises that would arise before the end of the gold-standard fixed-rate currency exchange system in 1976.
“Section 122 does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs based on a trade deficit,” the lawsuit says.
Trump is the first president ever to invoke Section 122.
James — who led a massive fraud investigation into Trump’s real-estate empire — has joined more than three dozen lawsuits against the Trump administration since the president returned to the White House.
In turn, Trump has repeatedly pushed for criminal investigations into the state attorney general, none of which have landed.
Speaking from the White House briefing room after the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, Trump raged against what he called a “deeply disappointing” ruling and said he was “absolutely ashamed” of two conservative justices he appointed who sided with the court’s majority.
“They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy and great again. They are also frankly a disgrace to our nation, those justices,” Trump said. “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”
That night, he said he was imposing a 10 percent tariff on all trading partners. Less than 24 hours later, he bumped up that rate to 15 percent “based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision,” he wrote on Truth Social.
The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether Trump illegally imposed sweeping tariffs on nearly every trading partner under the 1977 law, which permits the president to regulate trade during “unusual and extraordinary” circumstances when a national emergency is declared.
Trump invoked the law when he imposed a baseline 10 percent tariff on most countries, in addition to heavier “reciprocal tariffs” that he announced last April on his so-called “Liberation Day.” The president argued the tariffs were a matter of national security to balance trade deficits.
The tariffs — a key tool in the president’s economic agenda — sparked global chaos and several lawsuits from small businesses. Trump, using tariffs as leverage to extract “deals” with other countries, repeatedly walked back his levies and markets gradually rebounded.
Hundreds of business owners across the country who were forced to absorb the cost of Trump’s tariffs and then pass costs to consumers through higher prices have filed complaints seeking reimbursements.
Approximately 1,000 complaints have been filed with the Court of International Trade in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
