Twelve US states sue to block Trump's tariffs, citing constitutional overreach

A coalition of twelve U.S. states filed a lawsuit on April 23 challenging former President Donald Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs, arguing that his actions illegally bypass Congress and disrupt the constitutional balance of powers.

Led by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, the lawsuit targets the enforcement of global tariffs imposed under Trump’s administration, which invoked a wartime-era statute granting the president emergency trade authority, Caliber.Az reports, citing American media.

The case was filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

According to the complaint, Trump’s application of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a law allowing presidents to regulate trade during declared national emergencies—was used inappropriately to impose extensive and fluctuating tariffs without proper justification.

“By claiming the authority to impose immense and ever-changing tariffs on whatever goods entering the United States he chooses, for whatever reason he finds convenient to declare an emergency, the President has upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy,” Democratic attorneys general wrote in the lawsuit.

Arizona’s Attorney General Kris Mayes denounced the tariff policy in strong terms, saying in a public statement, “Trump’s insane tariff scheme is not only economically reckless — it is illegal.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has often been targeted by Trump in the past, warned that the tariffs “will lead to more inflation, unemployment, and economic damage,” placing the financial burden on American consumers through higher import taxes.

In response to the legal action, White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended the administration’s position. “Once again, Democrats like Letitia James are prioritising a witch hunt against President Trump over protecting the safety and well-being of their constituents," Desai said.

Desai further emphasised the administration’s stance, adding, “The Trump Administration remains committed to using its full legal authority to confront the distinct national emergencies our country is currently facing—both the scourge of illegal migration and fentanyl flows across our border and the exploding annual U.S. goods trade deficit.”

The lawsuit specifically cites four executive orders related to tariffs, all of which invoked IEEPA. The complaint argues that the so-called national emergencies cited by Trump fail to meet the threshold of being “unusual and extraordinary threats,” which the law requires as justification for bypassing Congress.

“The purported ‘unusual and extraordinary threat’ identified by President Trump as ‘national emergencies’ do not amount to emergencies. Nor are they extraordinary or even unusual,” the plaintiffs assert.

The legal challenge claims that by failing to justify the use of IEEPA with a genuine emergency, the Trump administration infringed upon Congress’s exclusive power to impose taxes and tariffs, as established in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Trump’s administration had previously defended its tariff measures by attributing blame to certain U.S. trading partners, declaring various emergencies to justify the import restrictions.

The lawsuit emerges as lawmakers from both parties intensify efforts to reclaim trade authority for Congress. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), both members of the Senate Finance Committee, have introduced legislation requiring the president to provide Congress with 48 hours' notice before any new tariffs can be enacted.

By Tamilla Hasanova