U.S. State Coalition Files Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Global Tariffs Under Section 122

On Thursday, March 5, 2026, a formidable coalition comprising twenty-two state attorneys general and two Democratic governors initiated a major legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s executive authority to impose sweeping new global tariffs. The lawsuit was officially lodged in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between state leaders and the federal executive branch. This specific legal action is directed at the administration's recent decision to levy a 15 percent duty on imported goods from nearly every country worldwide, a move the plaintiffs argue constitutes a massive and unconstitutional overreach of presidential power.

This latest judicial confrontation follows closely on the heels of a pivotal Supreme Court ruling issued on February 20, 2026, which invalidated the Trump administration's earlier attempt to implement broad-scale tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Following that defeat, the administration shifted its legal strategy to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—a statutory provision that had historically remained dormant and had never been used for such comprehensive tariff measures. The administration initially set a 10 percent fee under Section 122 on February 24, 2026, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent soon indicated that this figure would be increased to 15 percent to meet the administration's economic objectives.

Leading the charge in this litigation are several high-profile state officials, including Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. The plaintiffs contend that Section 122 was narrowly intended by Congress to address specific economic emergencies, particularly "large and serious balance-of-payments deficits," and was never meant to be a tool for bypassing the Supreme Court's restrictions on IEEPA. Attorney General Rayfield stressed that the administration's focus should be on returning funds to American citizens rather than intensifying its use of controversial trade penalties. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes was even more pointed, describing the new tariff actions as the same illegal power grab previously rejected by the courts, now simply operating under the guise of a different law.

Section 122 provides the president with the authority to impose import duties of up to 15 percent for a maximum period of 150 days without seeking Congressional consent. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has articulated a plan to use this temporary window to complete more detailed investigations under Section 301 and Section 232, which would pave the way for a more permanent and long-term tariff structure. In response to the lawsuit, White House spokesperson Kush Desai asserted that the administration would "vigorously defend" the president's actions in the judicial system. Desai argued that the president is correctly exercising the authority granted by Congress to address "large and serious balance-of-payments deficits" that threaten the nation's economic stability.

The current legal battle is occurring in parallel with complex proceedings aimed at securing the return of billions of dollars collected under the previous, now-defunct tariff regime. Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade has already handed down a significant ruling, ordering U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to nullify the IEEPA-related duties and re-process previously settled trade entries. This judicial mandate could necessitate the federal government returning upwards of $130 billion to businesses and importers, a staggering sum that would represent a major fiscal blow to the administration's trade policy. It is highly expected that the Trump administration will seek to appeal this ruling in an effort to avoid such a massive payout.

The international community has watched these developments with growing alarm, as evidenced by comments from French President Emmanuel Macron, who voiced his deep concern regarding the stability of international trade norms. Macron emphasized that the global order relies on the rule of law and the robust system of checks and balances that define the American constitutional system. Additionally, the plaintiffs in the current suit highlight a critical flaw in the administration's application of Section 122; while the law requires "broad and uniform application" of tariffs, the administration has already carved out exceptions for specific goods, including those covered by the USMCA agreement. The coalition of states argues that these selective exemptions directly contradict the statutory requirements of Section 122, further undermining the legality of the president's actions.