On Thursday, around two dozen states took a stand against President Donald Trump’s new global tariffs. They filed a lawsuit challenging the 15% import taxes he announced after losing a case in the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit, led by Democratic attorneys general from states like Oregon and California, claims Trump is overstepping his authority. They argue that these tariffs could raise costs for both consumers and businesses. Attorney General Dan Rayfield from Oregon emphasized that the focus should be on helping people instead of imposing more tariffs.
Trump believes the tariffs are necessary to tackle America’s long-standing trade deficits. He used Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose these taxes after his previous attempt under an emergency powers law was blocked by the Supreme Court. Notably, Section 122 has never been used before, allowing the president to impose tariffs for up to five months, unless Congress extends them.
The White House has asserted that Trump’s actions are legitimate. Spokesman Kush Desai said, “The President is using his authority to address serious balance-of-payments deficits.” He also promised a strong defense in court.
The lawsuit highlights a key point: a study from the New York Federal Reserve found that American households could pay about $1,200 yearly due to these tariffs. Arizona’s Attorney General Kris Mayes remarked that this amount could hurt families trying to cover everyday expenses.
Interestingly, the provision Trump is using was created during the financial crises of the 1960s and 1970s, when the U.S. dollar was tied to gold. Critics argue that Section 122 is outdated since the dollar’s link to gold no longer exists. In fact, last year, even Trump’s Justice Department suggested that Section 122 was not suitable for addressing trade deficits.
However, some legal experts believe Trump may have a stronger case this time. Peter Harrell, a scholar at Georgetown University, noted that courts might give Trump more leeway under Section 122 compared to previous tariffs. The specialized Court of International Trade, which will hear the case, previously indicated that Section 122 could indeed be valid for addressing trade deficits.
A broad coalition of states, including Colorado, Illinois, and New Jersey, joined the lawsuit. This widespread challenge reflects growing concern about the impact of tariffs on both state economies and everyday Americans.
As this legal battle unfolds, it will be crucial to watch how it affects trade policies and consumer prices. Given the stakes for many families, the outcome could have lasting implications.
For more detailed insights and analysis on trade and tariffs, you can refer to the recent reports by trusted sources like the [Brookings Institution](https://www.brookings.edu) or [Council on Foreign Relations](https://www.cfr.org).
Source link
Donald Trump, International trade, Lawsuits, Scott Bessent, Courts, Economic policy, Government policy, General news, Trump lawsuits, Oregon, AZ State Wire, OR State Wire, Tariffs and global trade, AP Top News, California, New York, Arizona, Washington news, Supreme Court of the United States, Business, U.S. news, Politics, Dan Rayfield, Kris Mayes, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, U.S. News
