Twenty-Four U.S. States Challenge New Global Tariffs in the U.S. Court of International Trade

A coalition of twenty-four U.S. states has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) seeking to block a new round of global tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. The case raises important legal and constitutional questions regarding the scope of presidential authority over international trade.

The tariffs were imposed on February 20, 2026, under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statutory provision that allows the President to adopt temporary trade measures to address serious balance-of-payments deficits. The administration initially imposed a 10% global tariff, which was increased the following day to the statutory maximum of 15%, scheduled to remain in effect until July 24, 2026.

These measures were announced only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated an earlier round of tariffs imposed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). In that decision, the Court emphasized that the U.S. Constitution assigns the authority to impose taxes and duties primarily to Congress, limiting the executive branch’s ability to introduce tariff measures without clear statutory authorization.

The states bringing the lawsuit—including California, New York, Oregon, Arizona, and twenty other states—argue that the administration’s reliance on Section 122 is unlawful. According to the complaint, the provision was enacted during a period of global monetary instability and was intended to address specific balance-of-payments crises that no longer exist under the modern international monetary system.

The states further contend that the tariffs represent an attempt to circumvent the constitutional allocation of taxing authority to Congress, echoing arguments raised in earlier litigation challenging tariffs imposed under the IEEPA.

The administration, however, maintains that the measures fall squarely within presidential authority. White House officials argue that the tariffs are necessary to address “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits” and to protect U.S. economic interests.

The outcome of this litigation could significantly shape the future of U.S. trade law and executive authority over tariff policy. A ruling from the Court of International Trade may clarify the permissible scope of presidential powers under Section 122 and other statutory mechanisms used to regulate imports.

For businesses engaged in international trade and cross-border investment, the case highlights the continuing legal uncertainty surrounding U.S. tariff policy. Companies operating globally should closely monitor these developments, as the Court’s decision may influence the regulatory environment governing imports into the United States.

THEVOZ & Partners, Law Firm, PLLC will continue to monitor the proceedings and provide updates on developments affecting international trade and cross-border business.