Twenty-five states sue to block Trump’s latest tariffs

Twenty-five states filed a federal lawsuit Monday, August 3, challenging the Trump administration’s new tariffs on imports from 60 economies. The states argue the duties are an unlawful substitute for tariffs the Supreme Court rejected earlier this year.

The lawsuit does not immediately suspend the tariffs or change what consumers and importers pay. The duties remain in effect unless a court orders separate relief.

What the states are asking

The coalition is asking a federal court to block the new Section 301 tariffs. The states describe the policy as a “pretext” for recreating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, after the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

Those are allegations in a newly filed case, not judicial findings. The court has not yet ruled on whether the tariffs are lawful or whether enforcement should be paused.

Why the February ruling matters

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, decided February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not give the president authority to impose tariffs. That decision addressed tariffs issued under IEEPA, not the separate authority the administration is now using.

That distinction is central to the new lawsuit. The administration says Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides an independent legal basis for duties aimed at foreign acts, policies or practices that are unreasonable, discriminatory or burden U.S. commerce.

What the new tariffs cover

The U.S. Trade Representative says the administration investigated 60 economies over their failure to prohibit or effectively enforce bans on goods made with forced labor. The resulting duties are generally 10% or 12.5%, depending on the economy, product and applicable exemptions.

USTR says the action reaches approximately 99.4% of U.S. imports, although the effective rate and coverage vary. Not every product from every covered economy faces the same duty, and specified exemptions and product-specific rules apply.

The administration’s position is that Section 301 includes procedural safeguards and requires findings about unfair foreign practices. Whether the investigations and resulting duties satisfy those requirements is now part of the legal dispute.

A separate business challenge

The states’ case follows a July 24 lawsuit filed by two U.S. small businesses. As Reuters reported, the companies argue that Section 301 requires more detailed, country-specific findings and a clearer connection between the conduct under review and the duties imposed.

The two lawsuits could create parallel tests of how broadly the administration may use Section 301 after the Supreme Court limited the tariff authority claimed under IEEPA.

What it could mean for prices and supply chains

The immediate effect for consumers is uncertainty rather than an automatic price change. Importers may continue paying the duties while the case proceeds, then decide whether to absorb the cost, pass it to manufacturers and retailers, or adjust suppliers and products.

Those decisions could affect businesses that rely on overseas components, finished goods and complex supply chains. State governments are also raising questions about the effect of tariff policy on public purchasing, budgets and economic planning.

Consumers could eventually see higher prices for some imported goods if companies pass along added costs, but the lawsuit itself does not establish that prices will rise or show how quickly any effect would occur.

What happens next

The next major steps are likely to include the administration’s response, a possible request for a preliminary injunction and a court decision on whether the tariffs remain in force during litigation.

Importers should watch court orders, USTR implementation guidance and customs instructions rather than assume the duties have been paused. The case could move through appeals and may ultimately present another tariff-authority question to the Supreme Court, but no outcome has been decided.

Sources

• Associated Press: 25 states sue over Trump’s new tariffs
• U.S. Trade Representative: Forced-labor Section 301 action
• Supreme Court opinion: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
• Reuters: Small businesses challenge forced-labor tariffs

Related News

• Small businesses challenge Trump’s newest tariff regime in trade court
• Federal Apprenticeships Expand Into Defense, Telecom and Tech
• TSMC’s $265 Billion U.S. Plan Faces Its Next Test
• Copyright Office submits proposed fee changes to Congress