Two dozen states sue Trump administration over global tariffs

Two dozen states have filed suit challenging President Trump’s authority to impose new global tariffs, saying the administration is improperly usurping Congress’s power over federal spending and asking a federal court to declare the policy unlawful and block its enforcement.

The cases, spearheaded by California and Illinois and filed in federal court in Rhode Island, contend the tariff action exceeds executive power and violates the Constitution by attempting to dictate federal spending that belongs to Congress. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction against the tariff policy. Plaintiffs defended their choice of venue, saying they filed in “any court that is going to be fair and objective and consider our factual presentation and legal analysis.”

Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont are explicitly identified in the filings as participants; state officials and organizers describe the coalition overall as representing two dozen jurisdictions. California’s attorney general, who has led extensive litigation against the administration, emphasized the multistate pushback, while Rhode Island’s attorney general said his office has launched more than a dozen suits against federal actions this year.

The legal challenge invokes administrative law and separation-of-powers principles. In related litigation, plaintiffs have argued under the Administrative Procedure Act that comparable executive actions are “arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with law and in excess of statutory authority,” and therefore deserve judicial relief. Courts elsewhere have already intervened in connected matters: a temporary restraining order blocked enforcement of certain sections of Executive Order 14187 within plaintiff states, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction with a narrow exception related to enforcement priorities, and another judge dismissed two constitutional counts with prejudice in May.

State plaintiffs placed the tariffs suit in a broader pattern of federal pressure and conditional funding disputes. On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation that warned agencies must cooperate on immigration efforts and eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs or risk losing funds; one governor wrote that any government entity that “chooses to thumb its nose at the Department of Homeland Security's national security and public safety mission, it should not receive a single dollar of the Department's money unless Congress has specifically required it.” New Jersey’s attorney general criticized the timing of such letters amid operational problems at Newark’s airport.

The litigation arrives at a fraught moment for trade policy and markets. Broad new global tariffs could push up import prices, feeding consumer inflation and disrupting supply chains for manufacturers and farmers who rely on imported intermediate goods. Legal uncertainty over executive tariff authority also pressures exporters and trading partners weighing contracts and investments. If courts block enforcement, states and industries facing higher costs would see immediate relief; if courts uphold the administration, businesses and consumers could face higher costs and more prolonged market reconfiguration.

For now, the case moves to the Rhode Island federal docket without an assigned public filing date in the materials reviewed. Plaintiffs seek rapid judicial resolution; the outcome will test the boundaries of executive economic power and could set a precedent shaping federal fiscal and trade policy well beyond the current administration.