12 States Sue Trump Over Tariffs

The Great Tariff Heist: How 12 States Are Calling Trump’s Trade War a Legal Swindle
Picture this: A president walks into a trade war armed with nothing but a 1970s emergency law and a *”trust me, dude”* attitude. Now, twelve states—led by New York’s no-nonsense AG Letitia James—are slamming the legal gavel, accusing the Trump administration of pulling off the ultimate policy grift. The crime? Allegedly hijacking congressional powers to slap tariffs on everything from sneakers to solar panels. Grab your magnifying glass, folks—we’re diving into America’s latest fiscal whodunit.

The Backstory: A Trade War Disguised as a National Emergency

In April 2025, twelve states—New York, Arizona, Colorado, and others—filed a blockbuster lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing that Trump’s latest tariff spree wasn’t just economically messy but *flat-out illegal*. The heart of the drama? The administration’s reliance on the *International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)*, a Nixon-era law meant for, say, nuclear threats—not slapping surcharges on Chinese steel to “protect Ohio’s factories.”
California had already filed its own lawsuit weeks earlier, howling about billions in port losses. But this coalition? They’re playing legal hardball, claiming the White House turned IEEPA into a “get-out-of-Congress-free card.” And with midterms looming, this isn’t just courtroom theater—it’s a fiscal revolt with 2025 campaign trail fireworks.

The Legal Smackdown: Three Reasons the Tariffs Might Not Hold Up

1. Constitutional Catfight: Who Actually Controls the Purse Strings?

The states’ lawsuit leans hard on Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which hands tariff powers to *Congress*—not the Oval Office. Trump’s team, though, argues IEEPA lets the president declare trade emergencies like some kind of economic Batman. But here’s the plot twist: the law requires an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” Yet the administration’s own memos admit the tariffs target “unfair competition”—not, say, a North Korean missile crisis.
Legal scholars are split. Some call this a classic overreach, like “using a flamethrower to light a candle.” Others note past presidents stretched IEEPA for lesser causes (looking at you, Carter’s Iran sanctions). But with lower courts already skeptical—remember the 2019 steel tariff smackdown?—this could be the case that finally draws a legal line.

2. The “National Security” Charade

The White House insists these tariffs shield U.S. industries from “foreign predators.” But the lawsuit mocks that logic, pointing to tariffs on *Canadian lumber* and *German cars*—hardly existential threats. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce rolled its eyes, calling it “protectionism in a Halloween costume.”
And the receipts? Brutal. Connecticut’s AG estimates tariffs cost families an extra $1,200/year in “hidden taxes,” while California’s ports bled $4.3 billion in 2024 alone. If courts agree the “emergency” was bogus, the whole policy could unravel faster than a discount-store sweater.

3. Economic Fallout: Main Street vs. Pennsylvania Avenue

Beyond legalities, the lawsuit screams *collateral damage*. Small businesses—like Brooklyn’s indie bike shops stuck with pricier Chinese parts—are stuck playing tariff Jenga. Meanwhile, supply chain chaos (see: 2022’s toilet paper apocalypse, now with extra inflation) lingers like a bad hangover.
Trump’s team fires back with a classic *”blame the haters”* playbook, dismissing the suit as “coastal elite whining.” But with red states like Arizona joining the fray—where tariffs spiked solar panel costs by 18%—this isn’t just blue-state theatrics. It’s a mutiny.

The Verdict: What’s Next in This Policy Dumpster Fire?

If the courts kill the tariffs, it’s open season on presidential trade powers—future White Houses might need actual congressional buy-in for economic fistfights. Businesses would cheer cheaper imports, but protectionist voters could howl. And politically? This case is a 2025 campaign ad goldmine, with Democrats painting Trump as a “lawless cowboy” and Republicans doubling down on “America First” bravado.
One thing’s clear: this lawsuit isn’t just about tariffs. It’s about who gets to call the shots in a trade war—the people’s reps or one guy with a Sharpie and a grudge. And for shoppers staring down another $8 avocado? The stakes are way too real.
Case closed? Not even close.