Democratic attorneys general in two dozen states, including California and New York, are filing a lawsuit to block President Trump’s new tariffs, two weeks after a new round of taxes and duties on imports were issued following a Supreme Court ruling that found the White House had overstepped its authority.
The lawsuit — set to be filed Thursday in the United States Court of International Trade — challenges Trump’s decision to impose sweeping tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which California Attorney General Rob Bonta accused the president of twisting beyond recognition.
“Trump is trying to use an obscure law to push through tariffs that his co-equal branch, Congress, not the president alone, is supposed to authorize,” Bonta said in a virtual news conference with AGs Letitia James of New York, Dan Rayfield of Oregon and Kris Mayes of Arizona.
Last month, the Supreme Court struck down tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling the law does not give the president broad authority to impose sweeping import taxes without congressional approval. The White House was ordered to refund roughly $130 billion in tariffs.
The administration quickly pivoted to a different statute — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — to implement a new round of global tariffs.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who also joined the lawsuit, compared Trump’s actions to being “like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.”
Bonta said that Trump’s new tariffs rely on an outdated form of currency exchange “that we don’t even use anymore,”drawing a smirk from Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
“At the end of the day, for us, this isn’t about political gamesmanship,” Bonta said, “it’s about making sure our communities aren’t paying the price for Trump’s inability to take an L.”
The White House quickly fired back Thursday morning, saying it will “vigorously defend” Trump’s tariffs in court.
“The President is using his authority granted by Congress to address fundamental international payments problems and to deal with our country’s large and serious balance-of-payments deficits,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai told The Post in an email.
The lawsuit argues Trump has no legal authority to impose the tariffs under Section 122 — a little-used provision that allows temporary import restrictions only in narrow circumstances tied to serious international payment crises.
States that joined the lawsuit argue that the president justified the tariffs by pointing to long-running trade deficits and other economic metrics that the states say have nothing to do with the law’s requirements.
Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, conceded that zero Republican attorney general signed on to the lawsuit but suggested the reason is they are “fearful” about losing their jobs.
“I think in the current political environment it’s very difficult for Republicans to challenge their party’s leader,” Rayfield said.
According to a recent Yale study cited by California officials, tariffs imposed during Trump’s trade push cost the average U.S. family about $1,751 last year.
Mayes, of Oregon, noted that despite the lack of red-state prosecutors joining the effort, the lawsuits on tariffs are being “widely supported by Democrats and Republicans.”
“This is probably the most bipartisan series of lawsuits that we have filed,” Mayes said.
