24 states sue Trump administration over tariffs imposed after Supreme Court ruling

Two dozen states sued the Trump administration on Thursday, alleging that President Trump exceeded his authority in imposing new global tariffs after the Supreme Court in February struck down emergency import duties he introduced last year.

The lawsuit, brought by a coalition of state attorneys general and governors, centers on 10% tariffs the Trump administration recently implemented under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Mr. Trump later said he would raise the tariffs to 15%. The states argue that the tariffs violate the Constitution's separation of powers principle. 

In a 6-3 decision last month, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Trump did not have the right to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

"As with his unlawful use of IEEPA, the president has once again exercised tariff authority that he does not have — involving a statute that does not authorize the tariffs he has imposed — to upend the constitutional order and bring chaos to the global economy," the states said in the suit. 

Trump administration officials have said that raising tariffs on imports will restore fairness to global trade, spur investment in the U.S. and generate government revenue. Data shows the U.S. collected $287 billion in customs duties, taxes and fees in 2025, up 192% from the previous year. 

"The President is using his authority granted by Congress to address fundamental international payments problems and to deal with our country's large and serious balance-of-payments deficits," White House spokesperson Kush Desai told CBS News in a statement. "The administration will vigorously defend the President's action in court." 

The Trump administration claims that foreign governments and exporters absorb most tariff costs, although some studies show the levies have largely been borne by U.S. consumers and businesses.

Section 122

Mr. Trump is the first U.S. president to invoke tariffs under Section 122. 

"Section 122 has never been used, and therefore courts have had no occasion to interpret its language," the Congressional Research Service said in a February report.

The statute states that a president may issue a temporary import surcharge, not exceeding 15%, to deal with "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits."

It's unclear whether the Trump administration's use of Section 122 will withstand legal scrutiny. The Justice Department argued in a court filing last year that the president needed to invoke IEEPA because Section 122 did "not have any obvious application" in addressing trade deficits,

Still, some legal analysts said the Trump administration has a stronger case this time.

"The legal reality is that courts will likely provide President Trump substantially more deference regarding Section 122 than they did to his previous tariffs under IEEPA,'' Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown University's Institute of International Economic Law, wrote in a commentary Wednesday.

Stinging legal defeats

The lawsuit asks the U.S. Court of International Trade to rule that Section 122 tariffs are illegal and to order the U.S. government to refund states for any costs while the tariffs were in effect.

The litigation also intensifies the pushback against the Trump administration over its tariff policies since the high court's ruling striking down its IEEPA levies. A Court of International Trade judge ruled on Wednesday that businesses that paid IEEPA tariffs are entitled to refunds. Separately, a federal appeals court on Monday declined to delay implementation of the Supreme Court ruling on IEEPA. 

Trade experts estimate that the U.S. government could owe as much as $175 billion to businesses that paid IEEPA levies.