President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs are facing a major legal challenge from New York and 11 other states, who argue the president overstepped his authority and put the U.S. economy at risk by imposing them without congressional approval.
Filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, the lawsuit challenges Trump’s use of emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs on imports from countries worldwide.
“Once again, Democrats like Letitia James are prioritizing a witch hunt against President Trump over protecting the safety and wellbeing of their constituents,” White House spokesman Kush Desai wrote exclusively to Fox News Digital. “The Trump Administration remains committed to using its full legal authority to confront the distinct national emergencies our country is currently facing—both the scourge of illegal migration and fentanyl flows across our border and the exploding annual U.S. goods trade deficit.”
The 12 states, however, argue that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to impose taxes and tariffs, and that IEEPA was never intended to authorize trade policy on this scale.
LONGTIME TRUMP FOE LETITIA JAMES REVIEWING POSSIBLE INSIDER TRADING OVER PRESIDENT’S TARIFF PAUSE
“President Trump’s reckless tariffs have skyrocketed costs for consumers and unleashed economic chaos across the country,” said Gov. Kathy Hochul. “New York is standing up to fight back against the largest federal tax hike in American history. Attorney General James and I are partnering on this litigation on behalf of New York consumers, because we can’t let President Trump push our country into a recession.”
“The president does not have the power to raise taxes on a whim,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “His tariffs are unlawful and, if not stopped, they will lead to more inflation, unemployment, and economic damage.”
Since February 2025, Trump has signed multiple executive orders imposing new tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, and nearly all other U.S. trading partners.
The administration cited national emergencies as the basis for the tariffs, including drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and unfair trade practices. The states in the lawsuit claim the president’s justifications are vague and legally insufficient.
The IEEPA, enacted in 1977, allows presidents to respond to specific international threats, such as terrorism or hostile foreign actors. But according to the lawsuit, no president in the 48 years since its passage has used it to impose tariffs.
GOP LAWMAKER TOUTS $19M TRUMP TARIFF SUCCESS STORY IN HER DISTRICT: ‘NEW MODEL FOR AMERICAN MANUFACTURING’
The complaint argues that the new tariffs were imposed without congressional approval or the necessary legal findings to justify sweeping trade actions.
The lawsuit also claims that tariffs are not connected to any specific “unusual and extraordinary” threat, as required under IEEPA, which the Trump administration cited as its authority. The states claim the tariffs will significantly raise consumer prices, drive inflation, lead to job losses, and create widespread economic instability.
The legal challenge doesn’t just focus on economics. It argues the tariffs are unconstitutional because they usurp congressional authority over taxes and trade. The lawsuit also claims the administration’s shifting policy — which they claim is often modified by executive orders or social media — has created chaos in trade and financial markets.
Supporters of the Trump administration say the tariffs are a bold move to protect American industries and correct longstanding trade imbalances.
At a February 2025 press conference, President Trump said, “We took in hundreds of billions of dollars [with past tariffs]… It’s going to make our country rich,” framing the measures as a continuation of his America First economic agenda.
But the lawsuit paints a different picture of legal overreach and a lack of transparency. It argues that if President Trump’s actions are allowed to stand, any future president could impose taxes under the label of emergency authority, bypassing Congress entirely.
Gov. Hochul and Attorney General James, both vocal critics of the Trump administration, have frequently clashed with the president over a range of issues, from immigration to environmental policy. This latest lawsuit marks another high-profile confrontation.
Alongside New York, the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont have joined the case.
The coalition is asking the court to block further enforcement of the tariffs and declare the orders invalid under both the Constitution and federal law.
