Legal Battle Erupts as Twelve States Challenge Trump’s Tariffs as Unconstitutional

Legal Battle Erupts as Twelve States Challenge Trump’s Tariffs as Unconstitutional

President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs are facing a significant legal challenge from New York and eleven other states. These states assert that Trump overstepped his authority by imposing tariffs without congressional approval, placing the U.S. economy at risk.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, contests Trump’s application of emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This act ordinarily permits presidents to respond to international threats. However, the states argue that the tariffs on imports from a range of countries were imposed overreachingly.

White House spokesman Kush Desai expressed the administration’s view, stating that the legal action represents a distraction from larger problems. Desai emphasized the Trump administration’s commitment to utilizing its legal authority to address pressing national emergencies, including illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

In stark contrast, the twelve states maintain that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose taxes and tariffs—not the president. They contend that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was never meant to approve such extensive trade policies.

State Response to Tariffs

Governor Kathy Hochul of New York voiced her concerns, stating that Trump’s tariffs have led to increased costs for consumers and chaotic economic conditions throughout the nation. She called the tariffs the largest federal tax increase in American history and described the legal challenge as a fight for the economic welfare of New Yorkers.

New York Attorney General Letitia James reiterated this sentiment, declaring that Trump does not possess the unilateral power to impose taxes. James argued that without intervention, these tariffs could trigger increased inflation, higher unemployment, and a range of economic challenges.

Background on Tariffs and Legal Justifications

Since February 2025, Trump has signed multiple executive orders that have resulted in new tariffs on various countries, including Canada, Mexico, and China, among others. The administration has cited multiple national emergencies as the basis for these tariffs, claiming they address issues such as drug trafficking and unfair trade practices.

However, the states involved in the lawsuit argue that the president’s justifications for the tariffs are vague and legally insufficient. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which became law in 1977, allows presidents to respond to international threats, but its applications to impose tariffs have never before been utilized in a similar manner.

Insufficient Evidence and Economic Impact

The complaint against Trump argues that these tariffs were enacted without the necessary congressional approval. It also contends that there were no substantial legal findings to back up such sweeping trade measures. The states believe that the tariffs lack a connection to any specific unusual threat, as required under the governing law.

As a result of these tariffs, the states claim consumers will face significant price increases, driving inflation further up and potentially leading to job losses, which could create widespread economic instability.

Constitutional Arguments Against the Tariffs

This legal challenge does not solely center on economic repercussions. The states argue that the tariffs infringe upon the Constitution, usurping the authority of Congress in matters of taxation and trade. The lawsuit further critiques the administration’s shifting policies, often modified by executive order or public statements, suggesting that this has contributed to chaos in financial markets.

Proponents of Trump’s tariffs argue that they are essential for protecting American industries and correcting long-standing trade imbalances. They promote the tariffs as a bold step towards stabilizing the economy.

Trump’s Perspective on Tariffs

During a press conference in February 2025, President Trump asserted that the previous tariffs had generated hundreds of billions of dollars for the U.S. He framed the tariffs as a continuation of his America First economic agenda, asserting they would lead to national prosperity.

A Call for Judicial Intervention

Nonetheless, the states involved in this legal challenge view the president’s approach as an example of legal overreach. They argue that if Trump’s actions go unchecked, any future president might exploit emergency powers to impose taxes, bypassing congressional authority entirely.

Both Governor Hochul and Attorney General James have frequently been critical of Trump on various issues, from immigration to environmental policies. This lawsuit signifies yet another significant confrontation between state leadership and the federal administration.

Wider Coalition Opposing Tariffs

Joining New York in this lawsuit are the attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont. The coalition is seeking to prevent further enforcement of the tariffs while requesting the court to declare the executive orders invalid under both constitutional and federal law.

As this legal battle unfolds, the implications of these tariffs and the authority under which they were imposed will be closely observed. What remains clear is the commitment of these states to challenge the legality of these measures and protect economic interests in their jurisdictions.