In 2025, a coalition of twelve U.S. states filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the legality of sweeping tariffs imposed unilaterally by President Donald Trump without explicit Congressional authorization. This lawsuit represents one of the most significant state-led challenges to presidential trade policy in recent history, alleging overreach of executive power and economic harm to U.S. industries and consumers.
Twelve States Lawsuit Against Trump Administration: Legal Challenge to Trump’s Tariff Policy and Alleged Abuse of National Emergency Powers in 2025
The lawsuit, filed in the United States Court of International Trade in New York, names the Trump administration and federal agencies enforcing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as defendants. The twelve states include Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont, led prominently by the New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The states contend that President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to impose tariffs on dozens of countries—especially China—constitutes an illegal “tariff war” and “tax hike” on American consumers. They argue that IEEPA was designed for addressing unusual and extraordinary threats, not for implementing broad trade policies without Congressional approval.
According to the lawsuit, Trump’s tariffs have created economic chaos, including rising prices, disrupting supply chains, and triggering retaliatory tariffs that threaten exporters and jobs. The plaintiffs seek to have the tariffs declared unconstitutional and to block federal enforcement efforts.
The administration defended the tariffs as necessary national emergency responses to crises such as illegal immigration, fentanyl trafficking, and U.S. trade deficits. White House spokesperson Kush Desai described the lawsuit as politically motivated and insisted the administration’s authority under IEEPA is robust.
The legal dispute has spurred multiple hearings before the Court of International Trade, with decisions pending on the scope and limits of presidential authority regarding trade and emergency powers.
The coalition of states joins other challengers including California, which filed its own suit, emphasizing the costly economic damage and state budget strains caused by tariffs.
This lawsuit exemplifies the constitutional and political tensions surrounding unilateral executive action, highlighting the importance of checks and balances in U.S. trade policy.
Legal analysts view the case as a litmus test for the reach of emergency powers granted to presidents and the corresponding protections for economic stability and rule of law.
Conclusion
The twelve states lawsuit against the Trump administration marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal contest over presidential leadership, economic policy, and state sovereignty. The case underscores the necessity of clear statutory boundaries and democratic oversight over decisions affecting the nation’s economy.
The outcome will significantly influence future administrations’ use of emergency powers and the governance of international trade.
