24 States Sue to Block Trump's New Global Tariffs

The lawsuit escalates a legal and economic fight over tariffs that intensified after the Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's earlier duties.

Published on Mar. 6, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A coalition of two dozen states have filed a lawsuit to block President Donald Trump's newly announced global tariffs, arguing that the administration cannot sidestep a recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down most of his earlier duties. The states contend that the administration's new tariffs, imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, exceed presidential authority and will raise costs for governments, businesses and consumers.

Why it matters

The outcome could affect billions of dollars in trade flows, a parallel refund process for more than $100 billion in previously collected duties, and the scope of executive power over U.S. trade policy.

The details

Twenty-four states led by Democratic attorneys general and two Democratic governors filed suit in the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade, alleging that the president's new global tariffs violated statutory limits and constitutional separation of powers. The filing followed the Supreme Court's February 20 decision to strike down most of Trump's prior tariffs imposed in early 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Hours after that ruling, Trump announced a new 10 percent global tariff, citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits duties up to 15 percent for up to 150 days to address balance-of-payments issues.

  • The Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's prior tariffs on February 20, 2026.
  • Trump announced the new 10 percent global tariff hours after the Supreme Court ruling.

The players

Donald Trump

The former president who imposed the new global tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

John Roberts

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who wrote the majority opinion striking down most of Trump's prior tariffs.

Democratic Attorneys General

The attorneys general of 24 states, led by Democrats, who filed the lawsuit to block Trump's new global tariffs.

Kush Desai

A White House spokesperson who said the administration will vigorously defend the President's action in court.

Dan Rayfield

The Oregon Attorney General who said Trump's tariff policy is "historically unpopular and is costing Americans, our business, and us as states hundreds of billions of dollars."

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Make no mistake about it, President Trump's signature economic policy is historically unpopular and is costing Americans, our business, and us as states hundreds of billions of dollars.”

— Dan Rayfield, Oregon Attorney General (News conference)

“Once again, President Trump is ignoring the law and the Constitution to effectively raise taxes on consumers and small businesses. After the Supreme Court rejected his first attempt to impose sweeping tariffs, the president is causing more economic chaos and expecting Americans to foot the bill. These tariffs will only drive up the cost of living, and I will continue to uphold the rule of law to protect New Yorkers.”

— Letitia James, New York Attorney General (News release)

“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. The administration will vigorously defend the President's action in court.”

— Kush Desai, White House spokesperson (Statement)

What’s next

The Court of International Trade is expected to set a schedule on the states' request for an injunction and continue to oversee refund litigation for importers seeking repayment for previously collected duties. The administration has signaled it will raise the new global tariff rate to 15 percent and will defend Section 122 in court. Any extension beyond 150 days would require congressional approval.

The takeaway

This legal battle over tariffs highlights the ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches over trade policy, with the Supreme Court playing a key role in setting limits on presidential authority. The outcome could have significant economic implications for businesses, consumers, and state governments across the country.