Twenty-five states asked a federal trade court on Monday, August 3, 2026, to throw out the Trump administration’s newest tariffs — duties of 10 or 12.5 percent on goods from about 60 economies. Those economies together supply about 99 percent of everything the United States imports — 99.4 percent, by California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s count. The states argue the tariffs are the same worldwide tariff plan the Supreme Court struck down in February, revived under a different legal label.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, is what the states’ complaint calls the administration’s third attempt at worldwide tariffs. It is co-led by California, Oregon, Arizona and New York, and names President Trump, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and U.S. Customs and Border Protection among the defendants. Twenty-three of the states appear through their attorneys general; the full list of 25 is at the bottom of this article. Kentucky and Pennsylvania joined through their Democratic governors, Andy Beshear and Josh Shapiro, rather than through their attorneys general.
For now, nothing changes at the border. No court has paused the tariffs, and as of August 4, 2026, no hearing date has been set.
Key facts
- 25 states sued in the U.S. Court of International Trade on August 3, 2026, over new 10-12.5 percent tariffs on goods from about 60 economies (99.4 percent of U.S. imports)
- The tariffs took effect July 24, 2026, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, over forced labor in supply chains
- States call it the third attempt at worldwide tariffs; the Supreme Court struck down the first in February 2026, and a trade court held the second (stopgap) tariffs illegal in May, a ruling an appeals court put on hold in June while the government appeals
- Suit co-led by California, Oregon, Arizona and New York
What the new tariffs are
The challenged duties were announced on July 23, 2026 and have been in effect since 12:01 a.m. Eastern on July 24. They were imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a law that lets the U.S. Trade Representative penalize foreign trade practices the government deems unfair. The stated justification: the 60 covered economies, which include the entire European Union, failed to keep goods made with forced labor out of their supply chains.
The rate a country pays depends on which group the trade office put it in:
- 10 percent applies to 17 economies, including Canada, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia and the United Kingdom
- 12.5 percent applies to most of the remaining economies
- For the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Switzerland, tariffs the United States already charges on their goods count toward the new duty — so the added charge is the difference needed to reach the 10 or 12.5 percent level, not the full rate stacked on top of what they already pay
The action carves out exclusions. Exempt categories include:
- Coffee, cocoa, bananas, fruits and nuts, and seafood
- Crude oil and petroleum products, and natural gas
- Pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and critical minerals
The trade office said these were excluded on grounds such as being unavailable domestically or too disruptive to tax. The exemptions do not shrink the 99.4 percent figure, which measures which countries the tariffs cover, not which individual products end up taxed.
Why the states say they are illegal
The heart of the complaint is a pretext argument, and it rests on keeping three rounds of tariffs straight:
- Attempt one: The sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, imposed under an emergency-powers law. In February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the law does not authorize tariffs at all, and those duties ended on February 24.
- Attempt two: A stopgap — temporary tariffs under a different, short-term trade authority. The trade court held those illegal in May, an appeals court put that ruling on hold in June while the government appeals, and the stopgap duties, temporary by design, have since run out.
- Attempt three: The current Section 301 tariffs, which took effect just as the stopgap was expiring. The first two sets of duties are gone; only the third is being collected today.
The states say that timing is no accident — in their telling, the forced-labor rationale is cover for recreating the struck-down regime. Their complaint alleges Greer:
- Rushed investigations of 60 economies into an unreasonably short window
- Skipped consultations with the affected countries that the trade law requires
- Never explained why nearly uniform rates were applied to economies with very different forced-labor records
On that basis, the suit claims the action exceeds the trade office’s legal authority and is arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act, the law governing how federal agencies must justify their decisions.
“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,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said. New York Governor Kathy Hochul called the tariffs “nothing more than a tax on hardworking families, driving up the cost of groceries, household essentials, building materials.”
The White House rejects the pretext charge. Spokesman Kush Desai said Section 301 tariffs “have proven to be a legally durable tool since the president’s first term, and they remain so now,” and said a foreign country’s failure to prohibit forced-labor goods is unreasonable and burdens U.S. commerce. Before it issued the action, the trade office received and analyzed more than 1,600 written comments and held public hearings from July 7 to 9, at which more than 100 witnesses testified.
What the states want, and what happens next
The states are asking the court to:
- Declare the tariffs unlawful and wipe out the action
- Put the tariffs on hold while the case is decided
- Permanently block enforcement
- Refund tariffs the plaintiff states have already paid
That refund request covers what the states themselves paid; the complaint’s list of requested relief does not include refunds for private importers or shoppers.
Whether any of that happens is up to the court — no ruling of any kind had come by August 4, 2026. The states asked for the case to be heard by a three-judge court, but no judges, briefing schedule or hearing date had been announced, and nothing in the record yet signals how long a decision might take. Until a court says otherwise, the tariffs stay in effect and keep being collected while the case runs.
The states are not alone in the courthouse. In July, spice importer Burlap & Barrel and watch retailer Collective Horology filed their own lawsuits over the same tariffs in the same court, also seeking their removal and refunds. Those cases are separate from the states’ suit.
The 25 states suing
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Kentucky
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Wisconsin
Sources and further reading
- Attorney General James and Governor Hochul Announce Lawsuit Against Trump Administration to Stop Latest Round of Illegal Tariffs
- Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration for a Third Time over Its Illegal Tariffs
- Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump — Supreme Court opinion, No. 24-1287
- USTR Takes Action in Forced Labor Section 301 Investigations
- federalregister.gov
- Notice of Actions in Section 301 Investigations … Failure To Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced With Forced Labor
- USTR Makes Findings and Proposes Action in 60 Section 301 Investigations Relating to Failures to Take Action on Trade in Forced Labor Goods