Full story
States sue over Section 301
Twenty-five US states sued the Trump administration on Monday over sweeping Section 301 tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners, seeking to block the measures, declare them unlawful, and order refunds for importers.
“Twenty-five US states sue Trump administration on Monday over wide-ranging tariffs”
The tariffs, imposed after probes by the USTR's office over allegations of "forced labour" under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, range from 10 and 12.5 percent and took effect as temporary tariffs expired on July 24.
The coalition filed in the US Court of International Trade in New York, arguing the president exceeded his authority by using forced-labour allegations as a pretext for blanket global tariffs.
In their court filing, the states said, "There is no rational fit between the purported problem of forced labour in international supply chains and the blanket global tariffs the USTR imposed," referring to the US Trade Representative's office.
The White House rejected the challenge, with spokesperson Kush Desai saying, "Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally durable tool since the President's first term, and they remain so now."
Competing claims and quotes
New York Attorney General Letitia James said the administration was once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses, arguing that after losing at the Supreme Court it was using a new round of tariffs to replace import taxes struck down in February.
James said, "After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs," and the lawsuit seeks to block the tariffs, declare them unlawful and compel refunds.
The White House defended the tariffs as lawful authority to address forced-labour practices, with Kush Desai telling CBS News, "The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination of unreasonable acts, policies and practices that burden U.S. commerce."
The states also argued the investigations were rushed and overly broad, alleging the USTR bypassed country-specific consultations and set nearly uniform rates across economies.
In the complaint, the states asserted, "The Tariff Action is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law," framing the forced-labour justification as a pretext rather than a tailored response.
What’s at stake next
The states asked the US Court of International Trade to halt implementation of the tariffs, declare them unlawful, and order refunds of duties already paid, while the administration argued the measures should stand under Section 301.
“"After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs,"”
The litigation is tied to the Supreme Court’s February ruling that blocked the administration’s earlier use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which forced refunds for importers who had paid tariffs under that framework.
The new Section 301 tariffs took effect just as the clock ran out on temporary 10% worldwide tariffs, with the White House describing the shift as a legally durable tool after the earlier setback.
The stakes extend to the scope of the duties, because the states said the tariffs cover countries that account for almost all US imports, with one account putting the figure at 99.4% of US imports.
As the case proceeds, the states are asking for a court order that would stop the tariffs and return collected duties, while the White House maintains that the tariffs are meant to address a foreign country’s failure to enforce a prohibition on goods produced with forced labour.
