A coalition of 25 U.S. states has challenged the legality of new tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump’s administration.
The administration imposed additional tariffs of 10 percent to 12.5 percent on 60 trading partners over allegations that they produced goods using forced labor or imported such products. The states filed their lawsuit Monday in the U.S. Court of International Trade.
The Guardian reported that the plaintiffs included New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, along with 17 other states. Democrats hold significant political influence in the states involved.
The United States has 50 states.
Background to the tariffs
The Trump administration imposed the additional duties last July against 59 countries, including India, Canada, Japan, Norway, Taiwan and China, as well as the European Union.
The measures were taken under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The administration alleged that the countries and regions imported goods produced with forced labor or were involved in producing such goods.
After beginning his second term, Trump announced a new tariff policy on April 2, 2025. It imposed a 10 percent baseline tariff on goods from every country trading with the United States, along with country-specific reciprocal tariffs.
Trump used tariffs as a principal policy tool during trade tensions with China, India, Canada, Mexico, Brazil and other countries throughout 2025.
Dispute follows Supreme Court rulings
On Feb. 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s tariff policy was unlawful.
The court said the administration had improperly used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 and that tariffs imposed under that law were invalid.
On May 7, the Supreme Court also struck down the baseline tariffs imposed under the same law.
States outline their case
New York Attorney General Letitia James said after the lawsuit was filed that products from the 60 targeted trading partners accounted for 99.4 percent of total U.S. imports.
James said the administration was again trying to raise taxes on American families and businesses after losing before the Supreme Court.
U.S. law and the Constitution do not allow a president to impose tariffs on another country at will, she said.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul also criticized the policy, saying forced labor was being used as a pretext for tariffs that increased costs for ordinary consumers.
Hochul told The Guardian that Trump’s tariffs placed an additional tax burden on working people and small-business families and raised prices for groceries, household necessities and construction materials.
She said the Supreme Court had already made clear that the law could not be disregarded in the name of imposing tariffs.
White House defends action
White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended the decision, saying the United States was using its legal authority to stop policies and practices that burdened American trade.
Foreign countries’ failure to prevent imports of goods produced with forced labor harmed U.S. workers and trade and required action, Desai said.
He said Section 301 tariffs had been used as a legally effective tool since Trump’s first term and remained in force.
বাংলায় মূল প্রতিবেদন পড়ুন · Read the original Bengali report