25 States Sue Trump Administration Over Forced-Labor Tariffs

Twenty-five states filed suit Monday against the Trump administration in the U.S. Court of International Trade, charging that new tariffs on imports from 59 countries and the European Union represent an unlawful effort to restore duties struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this year. The coalition, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, argues the 10 to 12.5 percent duties imposed last month under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act rely on a forced-labor rationale that serves as little more than a pretext.

The tariffs took effect July 23 and apply to trading partners accounting for 99.4 percent of U.S. imports, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Officials cited the failure of those nations, including the United Kingdom, China and the European Union, to curb goods produced with forced labor. Yet the states note the duties began one day before temporary tariffs enacted under another statute expired, following the Supreme Court ruling that President Trump lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad import taxes over trade deficits.

James said the administration is once again attempting to raise taxes on families and businesses after its earlier approach was rejected. The lawsuit contends the process violated Section 301 requirements, including mandatory country-specific consultations and adequate investigation periods. Previous Section 301 actions against China alone took eight months of review; the current cases covering 60 economies were completed in roughly two and a half months, the filing states. It further alleges the administration offered no explanation of how the chosen rates would reduce forced-labor practices and ignored procedural steps outlined in the statute.

White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the measures as a lawful exercise of authority to address practices that burden American businesses. He described any foreign failure to tackle forced-labor imports as unreasonable and said Section 301 has proven durable since its use during Trump’s first term. The administration maintains the tariffs target genuine trade abuses rather than revive rejected policies.

The states counter that the breadth of the duties undermines the stated goal. Tariffs covering nearly all imports make it difficult to isolate and penalize specific forced-labor violations, the complaint says, turning the statute into a vehicle for across-the-board protectionism. Small-business plaintiffs filed similar challenges in July, adding to the legal pressure on the administration’s trade agenda.

The suit seeks a declaration that the tariffs are unlawful, an order halting their collection and refunds of duties already paid. Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin joined New York in the action.

The case arrives as the administration continues to promote higher tariffs as a means to revive domestic manufacturing. Critics within the coalition argue the approach functions instead as a tax on imported goods that raises costs for U.S. consumers and businesses without directly confronting the labor practices it claims to target. The Court of International Trade has not yet set a hearing date.