24 States SUE Trump – Explosive Lawsuit Filed!

Trump dodged a Supreme Court smackdown on his tariffs only to face 24 states slamming him with a fresh lawsuit over his sneaky legal pivot.

Story Snapshot

Oregon-led coalition of 24 states sues Trump in U.S. Court of International Trade over novel use of Section 122 for 15% global tariffs.
Follows Supreme Court’s 6-3 February 2026 ruling striking down prior IEEPA tariffs as unlawful, unlocking over $150 billion in potential refunds.
States argue tariffs misapply law meant for balance-of-payments crises, not trade deficits, acting as unconstitutional taxes on Americans.
Consumers bear 90% of costs through higher prices on essentials amid affordability struggles.
Case tests executive power limits post-Supreme Court precedent, with immediate economic stakes for businesses and families.

Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s IEEPA Tariffs

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led 12 states in spring 2025 to challenge Trump’s broad tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November 2025. On February 20, 2026, a 6-3 majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts ruled the tariffs unlawful. The decision declared them taxes reserved for Congress, striking down over $150 billion in collections. Importers now seek refunds, with Oregon alone eyeing $670 million.

Trump Pivots to Section 122 in Swift Response

Within two weeks of the Supreme Court loss, Trump issued an executive order invoking Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. This imposed 15% tariffs on most worldwide products for 150 days, targeting trade deficits. Section 122 historically addressed balance-of-payments crises, never broad trade imbalances. States view this as an end-run around the ruling, bypassing Congress amid persistent U.S. trade gaps with China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU.

24 States Unite in Expanded Federal Lawsuit

March 2026 saw 24 states, including 22 attorneys general and two governors, file State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al., in the U.S. Court of International Trade. Connecticut AG William Tong and Treasurer Erick Russell highlighted $1.7 billion in state costs. The suit claims violation of separation of powers, misapplication of Section 122, and breaches of the Administrative Procedure Act. Rayfield called them taxes disguised as tariffs.

Tong labeled the move blatantly unconstitutional, destabilizing budgets and raising living costs. Comptroller Scanlon noted Connecticut’s heavy burden. The broader coalition leverages post-Supreme Court momentum, aligning importers seeking certainty and refunds.

[Ilya Somin] Twenty-Four States Led by Oregon File Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Section 122 Tariffs https://t.co/rcVrDPWUU2

— Volokh Conspiracy (@VolokhC) March 5, 2026

Economic Harm Hits Consumers and Businesses Hard

Federal Reserve Bank of New York data shows 90% of 2025 tariff costs passed to U.S. consumers and businesses. Prices rose for groceries, energy, cars, and more, exacerbating affordability crises. Trade-dependent Oregon, with manufacturing and agriculture sectors, suffered most. Small businesses and working families in states like Connecticut face billions in losses. Success could lower costs across import-reliant industries.

Constitutional Clash Tests Executive Limits

This lawsuit builds on Trump’s first-term tariffs, which drew WTO challenges but not this domestic scale. The Supreme Court precedent curtails unilateral presidential trade actions. States defend constitutional checks, arguing no president levies hidden taxes without Congress. Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent flagged refund uncertainties, hinting at administration resistance. A win reinforces separation of powers, potentially forcing legislative trade fixes.