A coalition of 25 states has filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's newest round of tariffs, opening another front in the long-running legal fight over the president's power to tax imports.

The suit, led by Oregon, targets tariffs the administration imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act, a provision that allows the government to respond to foreign trade practices, including those tied to forced labor. The states, all led by Democratic officials, argue that the president has stretched his statutory authority beyond what Congress intended.

At the center of the states' argument is a recent Supreme Court decision that narrowed the executive branch's ability to impose tariffs. The plaintiffs contend that the reasoning behind that ruling applies to the new duties as well, and that the administration turned to Section 301 as a way to reinstate levies that had been called into question. As the states frame it, the new tariffs are a "pretext" to replace earlier ones that faced legal challenges.

The administration has defended its use of the trade laws, saying the tariffs address unfair practices by foreign trading partners and fall within the powers Congress granted the executive branch. In past cases it has argued that the president holds broad discretion to act on trade in the national interest.

The dispute reflects a broader pattern. Over the course of the administration's tariff program, the president has invoked several different legal authorities to impose duties on imports, and opponents have challenged them one by one. As courts have questioned the basis for some tariffs, the administration has pointed to other sections of trade law to sustain them. Section 338, another statute the administration could use to justify tariffs, including on goods from Canada, has been raised as a possible subject of future litigation.

For the states, the stakes are financial as well as constitutional. They say the tariffs raise costs for consumers and businesses within their borders and function as a tax that only Congress has the authority to levy. The administration maintains the measures are a legitimate tool of trade policy.

The outcome will turn on how courts read the scope of the president's authority under Section 301 and whether the Supreme Court's recent ruling constrains it. That question is likely to move through the federal courts in the months ahead, and given the sums involved and the constitutional issues at play, it may ultimately return to the Supreme Court.

The case adds to a growing body of litigation over the administration's trade agenda, much of which remains unresolved.

References

1. 1.Associated Press — coalition of 25 states, Oregon-led suit, Section 301 basis, and the states' 'pretext' characterization
2. 2.Associated Press — administration's defense of its tariff authority and prior court arguments
3. 3.Associated Press — pattern of the administration invoking multiple trade authorities and the potential relevance of Section 338