In a major legal challenge, twelve US states—including New York, Illinois, Arizona, and Oregon—have filed a federal lawsuit on April 23, contesting the tariff policies introduced by former President Donald Trump under the guise of a national emergency. The lawsuit alleges the tariffs were imposed unilaterally and illegally, without Congressional approval, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 1977.
⚖️ Key Points from the Lawsuit:
- The states argue that only Congress has the constitutional power to levy tariffs, not the President.
- The Trump administration is accused of misusing the IEEPA, which is intended for threats from abroad, not to overhaul domestic trade policy.
- The lawsuit calls for a judicial review and a declaration that the tariffs are unlawful, seeking to block federal agencies from implementing them.
“By claiming authority to impose immense and ever-changing tariffs… the President has upended the Constitutional order and brought **chaos to the American economy,” the complaint reads.
The legal action comes in the wake of Trump’s declaration on April 2, where he announced reciprocal tariffs against multiple nations, arguing that the U.S. should match tariffs other countries place on American goods.
🌐 States Involved:
- Oregon
- Arizona
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Illinois
- Maine
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- New Mexico
- New York
- Vermont
🇺🇸 Separate Lawsuit from California
In parallel, California Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a separate lawsuit in the US District Court for Northern California, claiming the tariffs would cause billions in losses for California—the largest importing state in the country.
Arizona AG Kris Mayes slammed the policy as “insane,” calling it “economically reckless and illegal.”
🏛️ White House Responds
White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended the administration’s stance, stating:
“The Trump administration remains committed to addressing this national emergency… with every tool at our disposal, from tariffs to negotiations.”
The lawsuits mark a significant legal test for the limits of executive authority in trade policy and could have far-reaching implications for U.S. economic governance and international trade relations.
