25 US states sue Trump administration over new tariffs

The lawsuit seeks to halt the tariffs, declare them unlawful, and secure refunds for duties already paid, alleging the administration violated the US Administrative Procedure Act and conducted a rushed investigation into 60 economies in just two and a half months. The tariffs, which went into effect on July 24, follow a February ruling that previous measures were unconstitutional. Additionally, New York officials argue that the investigation into forced labor practices does not satisfy Section 301 requirements.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by conducting a rushed two-and-a-half-month investigation into 60 economies, a process that typically exceeds one year. The states are seeking to halt the tariffs, which were implemented on July 24 following the expiration of temporary 10% global tariffs, and to secure refunds for duties already paid. Additionally, the plaintiffs contend that the administration predetermined the investigation's outcome by applying tariffs equally to raw materials and finished goods regardless of forced labor prevalence.

The lawsuit, filed with the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the USTR conducted a rushed two-and-a-half-month investigation—a process that typically requires over a year—under the pretext of addressing forced labor to bypass congressional taxation powers. The states seek to halt the tariffs, which went into effect on July 24 following the expiration of temporary 10% global tariffs, and are requesting refunds for duties already paid. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue that the administration violated the US Administrative Procedure Act by applying blanket tariffs to both raw materials and finished goods regardless of specific labor practices.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the administration used a 'pretextual' investigation into global forced labor as a guise to reimpose trade barriers and violated the US Administrative Procedure Act. The states contend that the Office of the US Trade Representative conducted a rushed two-and-a-half-month investigation, a process that typically requires over a year, and that the tariffs unfairly apply to both raw materials and finished goods. Furthermore, the coalition seeks to halt the tariffs, which went into effect on July 24, and demands refunds for duties already paid.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the USTR conducted a rushed two-and-a-half-month investigation into 60 economies—a process that typically exceeds one year—to use forced labor as a pretext for imposing blanket global tariffs. The states further contend that the administration violated the US Administrative Procedure Act and that the tariffs indiscriminately target both raw materials and finished goods regardless of specific market conditions. Additionally, the legal challenge seeks to halt the tariffs implemented on July 24 and requests refunds for duties already paid.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the USTR conducted a rushed two-and-a-half-month investigation—a process typically requiring over a year—and used forced labor concerns as a pretext to reimpose trade barriers. The coalition further contends that the administration violated the US Administrative Procedure Act and that the blanket tariffs lack a rational connection to the purported issue of forced labor. Additionally, the legal challenge seeks to halt the tariffs, declare them unlawful, and secure refunds for duties already paid.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the administration used a pretextual investigation into global forced labor as a legal guise to reimpose trade barriers and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the 25-state coalition contends that the Office of the US Trade Representative conducted a rushed investigation into 60 economies in just two and a half months, a process that typically requires over a year. While the administration maintains its actions are lawful under Section 301, the states seek to halt the tariffs, which were imposed on July 24, and order refunds for duties already paid.

The lawsuit filed by the 25 states alleges that the USTR conducted a rushed investigation into the 60 economies in just two and a half months, a process that typically requires over a year, and claims the administration used forced labor concerns as a pretext to reimpose trade barriers. Additionally, the coalition seeks to have the US Court of International Trade halt the tariffs, declare them unlawful, and order refunds for duties already paid. The new tariffs, which were announced on July 23 and imposed on July 24, followed the expiration of temporary 10% global tariffs that had been in place for 150 days.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the administration used a pretextual investigation into forced labor as a guise to reimpose trade barriers and claims the USTR conducted a rushed investigation into 60 economies in just two and a half months, a process that typically requires over a year. The states are seeking to halt the July 24 tariffs, declare them unlawful, and order refunds of duties already paid, arguing that the administration violated the US Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the coalition contends that the tariffs apply indiscriminately to both raw materials and finished goods regardless of the actual prevalence of forced labor in the

The new tariffs were officially imposed on July 24 following the expiration of temporary 10% global tariffs. The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade by a coalition of 25 states led by California, Arizona, and Oregon, seeks to halt the duties, declare them unlawful, and obtain refunds. Plaintiffs allege that the administration conducted a rushed two-and-a-half-month investigation into 60 trading partners—including the EU, China, and Japan—as a pretext to reimpose trade barriers, violating the Administrative Procedure Act by using forced labor allegations as a cover for broad taxation.

The new Section 301 tariffs, announced by the USTR on July 23, officially took effect on July 24 following the expiration of previous 150-day temporary measures. The lawsuit filed by the 25-state coalition in the US Court of International Trade seeks to have these duties declared unlawful, halt their enforcement, and secure refunds for paid tariffs, arguing that the administration rushed its investigation into 60 trading partners—including the EU, China, and Japan—as a pretext to bypass congressional authority. While the White House maintains the tariffs are a legally durable tool to combat forced labor, the plaintiffs allege the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and lacks a rational connection between the purported issue and the blanket global taxes imposed.

The lawsuit, which asks the US Court of International Trade to halt the tariffs and order refunds, alleges that the USTR conducted a rushed investigation into 60 economies in just two and a half months, a process that typically requires over a year. The states further claim the administration used a pretextual investigation into global forced labor as a legal guise to reimpose trade barriers and violated the US Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the new tariffs were implemented on July 24, one day before the expiration of previous temporary 10% global tariffs that had been in place for 150 days.

The lawsuit alleges that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative conducted a rushed investigation into 60 economies in just two and a half months, a process that typically requires over a year. Additionally, the states contend that the administration used a pretextual investigation into global forced labor as a legal guise to reimpose trade barriers through blanket global tariffs. The legal complaint further describes the administration's actions as arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the USTR conducted a rushed two-and-a-half-month investigation into 60 economies, a process that typically takes over a year, and claims the administration used forced labor concerns as a pretext to reimpose trade barriers. The coalition further contends that the tariffs are arbitrary and violate the US Administrative Procedure Act by applying equally to raw materials and finished goods regardless of specific market conditions. In response, the White House maintains that the administration is using its lawful authority under Section 301 to address unreasonable practices that burden US commerce.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the administration used a pretextual investigation into global forced labor to reimpose trade barriers and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The states contend that the USTR conducted a rushed investigation into the 60 economies in just two and a half months, a process that typically requires over a year. Additionally, the coalition is seeking to halt the tariffs, which were implemented on July 24, and has requested an order for the refund of duties already paid.

The states' lawsuit alleges that the Office of the US Trade Representative conducted a rushed investigation into 60 economies in just two and a half months, a process that typically requires over a year. The coalition further contends that the administration used a 'pretextual' investigation into global forced labor as a legal guise to reimpose trade barriers, arguing there is no rational fit between the purported problem and the blanket global tariffs. Additionally, the filing claims the administration violated the US Administrative Procedure Act and predetermined the outcome of its investigation, as the tariffs apply equally to both raw materials and finished goods.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the USTR conducted a rushed two-and-a-half-month investigation into 60 economies—a process that typically takes over a year—and claims the administration used forced labor concerns as a pretext to reimpose trade barriers. The states also argue that the administration violated the US Administrative Procedure Act, noting that the tariffs apply equally to raw materials and finished goods regardless of specific market practices. Additionally, the legal challenge follows the expiration of temporary 10% global tariffs on July 24 and follows previous unsuccessful attempts by the administration to impose worldwide tariffs under'

The lawsuit alleges that the Office of the US Trade Representative conducted a rushed investigation into 60 economies in just two and a half months, a process that typically requires over a year. Additionally, the states contend that the administration is using a pretextual investigation into global forced labor as a legal guise to reimpose trade barriers. The legal complaint further describes the administration's actions as arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, specifically noting that the tariffs apply equally to raw materials and finished goods regardless of forced labor prevalence.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the USTR conducted a rushed two-and-a-half-month investigation into 60 economies instead of the typical year-long process and claims the administration used a pretextual investigation into forced labor as a guise to reimpose trade barriers. The states argue the tariffs are arbitrary and violate the US Administrative Procedure Act, while requesting the court to halt the duties and order refunds for payments already made. Meanwhile, the White House defended the use of Section 301 tariffs as a legally durable tool to address unreasonable practices that burden US commerce.

The lawsuit alleges that the USTR conducted a rushed investigation into 60 economies in just two and a half months, a process that typically requires over a year, and claims the administration used forced labor investigations as a pretext to reimpose trade barriers. Additionally, the states contend that the tariffs are arbitrary because they apply equally to raw materials and finished goods regardless of specific market conditions. The legal challenge follows the expiration of temporary 10% worldwide tariffs on July 24 and seeks to halt the new measures, declare them unlawful, and secure refunds for duties already paid.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the USTR conducted a rushed two-and-a-half-month investigation into 60 economies—a process that typically requires over a year—and claims the administration used forced labor concerns as a pretext to violate the Administrative Procedure Act. The coalition is seeking to halt the tariffs, which were imposed on July 24, and order refunds for duties already paid. Furthermore, while the administration defends the use of Section 301 as a legally durable tool, the states argue there is no rational connection between the targeted problem of forced labor and the resulting blanket global tariffs.

The lawsuit alleges that the Office of the US Trade Representative conducted a rushed investigation into 60 economies in just two and a half months, a process that typically requires over a year. Furthermore, the states contend that the administration used a pretextual investigation into forced labor as a guise to reimpose trade barriers and that the investigation's results were predetermined. The legal challenge also asserts that the administration violated the US Administrative Procedure Act and that the tariffs apply indiscriminately to both raw materials and finished goods.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade, alleges that the administration's investigation into global forced labor was a 'pretextual' guise used to reimpose trade barriers and that the Office of the US Trade Representative conducted a rushed two-and-a-half-month process instead of the typical year-long investigation. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim the tariffs are applied indiscriminately to both raw materials and finished goods regardless of specific market conditions, violating the US Administrative Procedure Act.