Multistate coalition files lawsuit in CIT challenging Trump administration global tariffs

25 mainly democratic states on Monday sued the Trump administration over its latest attempt to implement sweeping global tariffs. The lawsuit, filed in the International Trade Court (CIT), argues that the tariffs are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the law they were imposed under. President Trump invoked the tariffs in question under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, or “Relief from Unfair Trade Practices”, which allows the President to launch an investigation into and take action against certain foreign trade policies. In June of 2026, Trump launched an investigation into the economies of several of the US’ major trade partners and named 60 of them, including many located within the European Union, as targets for the new 10-12.5 percent tariff rate. The administration’s reasoning for implementing sanctions against these countries is that they all trade in goods produced “wholly or in part with forced labor.” The lawsuit indicated that the pretext of going after countries that use forced labor in their production methods is just a means to further the administrations trade agenda, stating: “The Plaintiff States oppose forced labor in all its forms and support protections for workers around the globe. But the Administration cannot use forced labor as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme. The Tariffs the USTR (US Trade Representative) imposed are so broad that they defy the USTR’s own stated aims and make a mockery of the statute used to justify them.” This is not the first time Trump has invoked Section 301 to impose steep tariffs. During his first term, the president successfully placed tariffs on roughly 200 billion dollars worth of imports from China under the reasoning that they were engaged in unfair policies and practices relating to US technology and intellectual property. Throughout the ensuing court battles, the administration prevailed and the tariffs were deemed a lawful exercise of power under Section 301. This new approach to implementing sanctions directly follows the February 2026 decision by the US Supreme Court to strike down Trump’s original sanctions due to an unlawful attempt to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court held that IEEPA did not authorize the president to implement tariffs and such was an unlawful exercise of power. In retaliation, Trump invoked a temporary tariff plan to “address international payment problems” by imposing a 10 percent import tax, which expired just a few days before his new Section 301 plan came into effect. The states’ lawsuit essentially asks the court to hold that the tariff action is unlawful and permanently prohibit the administration from implementing or enforcing the tariff in any form.