Twenty-five states sue Trump tariffs this week in a case that turns on a simple accusation: the administration keeps trying to impose the same import taxes under whatever law happens to be available. Filed Monday, the lawsuit describes the newest round as a pretext for resurrecting duties the Supreme Court eliminated in February.

What the New Tariffs Do

Last month, the United States applied double-digit tariffs to 59 countries plus the European Union. The stated justification was that these trading partners had failed to adequately restrict imports made using forced labor.

The rates run between 10% and 12.5%. Their combined reach is enormous, covering countries that supply 99% of everything America imports.

Timing drew attention immediately. The new duties took effect precisely as an earlier temporary tariff regime expired.

Who Filed

New York Attorney General Letitia James framed the case bluntly, saying that after losing at the Supreme Court the administration is again attempting to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses through a fresh round of tariffs.

Joining New York: 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.

How the Administration Got Here

The path matters, because the states’ argument depends on it.

Last year, Trump broke with decades of American policy favoring lower barriers and expanding free trade. He invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, declaring that the persistent U.S. trade deficit constituted a national emergency, and imposed double-digit tariffs on imports from nearly every country.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Justices ruled that IEEPA does not grant authority to impose tariffs at all. The decision forced the government to refund importers who had already paid.

Facing lost revenue, the administration pivoted to temporary 10% worldwide tariffs. Those expired at midnight on July 24.

The forced-labor tariffs represent attempt number three, this time under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Why Section 301 Is Different

The choice of statute changes the legal terrain considerably.

Section 301 permits a president to levy import taxes and other penalties against countries determined to be engaged in unfair trade practices. Unlike IEEPA, it has a track record. Trump used it during his first term to impose significant tariffs on China, and those survived court challenges.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai leaned on that history. He said the United States is exercising lawful authority to eliminate unreasonable practices burdening American commerce, and argued that a country’s failure to prohibit and enforce against forced-labor goods is itself unreasonable and harmful to American workers. Section 301, he said, proved legally durable in the first term and remains so.

Not the Only Challenge

The states are not alone. Two separate lawsuits reached the Court of International Trade in July, brought by small businesses contesting the same 301 tariffs.

Those cases advance a procedural argument rather than a constitutional one. They contend the government failed to:

• Build an adequate case against each individual economy it targeted
• Explain how the tariffs would actually eliminate the specific practice they address

Both requirements, the businesses argue, are written into Section 301 itself.

The Copy-Paste Problem

Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law, identified what may be the administration’s central vulnerability.

This is the third attempt at essentially identical worldwide tariffs under three different statutes. Appleton described the successive measures as nearly copy-pasted, and said that resemblance could be difficult to defend in court.

He also drew a distinction that cuts the other way. The earlier statutes had never been used for this purpose before. Section 301 has been.

Where the Case Will Actually Be Decided

Appleton’s assessment of the coming fight was precise, and it points away from the arguments that dominated the last round.

Presidents have relied on Section 301 for decades, he noted, and Congress equipped it with genuine procedural requirements: an investigation, a consultation process, a public record.

That shapes the defense. The government will not be arguing that it possessed the power to act, because that question is largely settled. It will be arguing that it stayed within the boundaries Congress established.

Appleton called that a real fight rather than a formality, and said it is the issue that will determine the outcome.

What Is at Stake

For the administration, Section 301 offers something the previous approaches lacked: durability. If the tariffs survive, the revenue stream is stable and the legal foundation is tested.

For the states and the businesses suing, the concern is both immediate and structural. The costs land on importers and eventually consumers, and a ruling that the procedural guardrails are satisfied here would make similar future actions far easier to sustain.

The refund process following the February ruling demonstrated that these cases carry real financial consequences. This time, both sides are arguing over process rather than power, which makes the outcome considerably harder to predict.