25 States Sue Over Trump's New Tariffs 08/04 06:16

   Twenty-five states sued the Trump administration Monday over its latest 
tariffs, calling them a pretext for replacing import taxes the Supreme Court 
struck down in February.

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- Twenty-five states sued the Trump administration Monday 
over its latest tariffs, calling them a pretext for replacing import taxes the 
Supreme Court struck down in February.

   The United States last month imposed double-digit tariffs on 59 countries 
and the European Union, charging that they had not done enough to crack down on 
imports produced by forced labor. The new tariffs took effect just as the clock 
ran out on temporary tariffs President Donald Trump had turned to after the 
Supreme Court defeat.

   "After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying 
to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of 
tariffs," said New York Attorney General Letitia James.

   Joining New York in the lawsuit announced Monday are Arizona, California, 
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, 
Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North 
Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington and 
Wisconsin.

   Trump, who argues that high tariffs will revive American manufacturing, last 
year overturned decades of U.S. policy that favored lower tariffs and 
ever-freer trade. Invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers 
Act, or IEEPA, he imposed double-digit tariffs on imports from almost every 
country, saying America's longstanding trade deficit amounted to a national 
emergency.

   But the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not authorize tariffs. The 
decision forced the administration to send refunds to importers who'd paid the 
tariffs. Eager to make up the lost revenue, Trump turned to temporary 10% 
worldwide tariffs. But they expired at midnight July 24.

   Now he's tapping more durable tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 
1974, which permits the president to impose import taxes and other sanctions 
against countries found to engage in unfair trade practices. Trump used Section 
301 to impose big tariffs on China in his first term, and they survived court 
challenges.

   The administration invoked Section 301 to impose the forced-labor tariffs, 
which range from 10% to 12.5% and hit countries that provide 99% of American 
imports.

   "The United States is using its lawful authority to obtain the elimination 
of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices that burden U.S. commerce," White 
House spokesman Kush Desai said. "A foreign country's failure to impose and 
effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with 
forced labor is unreasonable and burdens U.S. commerce, including American 
workers, and must be addressed. Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally 
durable tool since the President's first term, and they remain so now."

   The states' lawsuit follows two other lawsuits filed in The Court of 
International Trade in July by small businesses that also challenged the 301 
tariffs.

   Both of those lawsuits argue that the government didn't adequately establish 
its case against each specific economy or spell how the tariffs will eliminate 
the specified practice they are being levied for, as required by Section 301.

   Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School's 
Center for International Law, said the challenges stem from the fact that the 
301 tariffs are the third time the administration has tried to impose similar 
worldwide tariffs under different statutes, and their "nearly copy-pasted" 
nature could pose a challenge to defend in court.

   However, he said while the statutes that the administration implemented 
tariffs under previously were novelties and hadn't been used before for that 
purpose, Section 301 has been used before.

   During Trump 's first term, he cited Section 301 to impose tariffs on 
Chinese imports, which survived legal challenges.

   "Presidents have used it for decades, and Congress built it with real 
guardrails: investigation, consultation, a public record," Appleton said. "The 
government's defense won't be 'I had no power to do this.' It will be, 'I 
stayed inside the lines Congress drew.' That is a real fight, not a formality, 
and it is the one that will decide this case."