Today, twenty-five largely Democratic-controlled state governments filed a lawsuit challenging Donald Trump’s massive new Section 301 tariffs. The complaint, filed in the US Court of International Trade, is available here. The suit is led by the state of Oregon, which also played a key role in leading state challenges to previous illegal Trump tariffs, including the IEEPA tariffs invalidated by the Supreme Court in February (the Oregon lawsuit was consolidated with one I helped litigate on behalf of private small businesses harmed by the tariffs), and the more recent decision striking down Trump’s Section 122 tariffs. I commend Oregon Deputy Attorney General Ben Gutman and his legal team for their invaluable work on these issues.
I previously wrote about why the Section 301 tariffs – imposed on the pretext that they are needed to combat forced labor – are illegal and likely to further damage the US economy and our credibility with trading partners. This is the third lawsuit challenging the Section 301 tariffs. In earlier posts, I wrote about the one filed by the Liberty Justice Center (the public interest organization I worked with in the IEEPA case) on behalf of two small businesses, and one filed by several firms, including Learning Resources, Inc., a toy manufacturer whose case was consolidated with ours in the IEEPA litigation, and eventually gave its name to the Supreme Court decision.
The state case raises arguments similar to the other two, largely focused on the many ways in which the Trump tariffs violate the various requirements of Section 301. The bottom line is that the administration is trying to use a statute limited to tariffs targeting specific trading practices as a blank check to start a massive trade war with nearly all our major trading partners.
Like the LJC suit, this one would – if it succeeds – would likely block enforcement of the Section 301 tariffs across the board. I don’t see any plausible way the court could stop collection of the tariffs against twenty-five states without blocking them more or less universally. For their part, LJC is seeking a class action certification which – if granted – would have much the same effect.
I would urge the states to also develop arguments focused on the major questions and nondelegation doctrines. I have previously written about how those points – which played crucial roles in the IEEPA litigation – are also highly relevant in these cases (see here and here).
I think it likely that the Court of International Trade will consolidate the three cases and decide them together.
I will likely have more to say about this litigation in the near future. Stay tuned!
-1024x683.jpg "Judge Who Helped Violent Illegal Alien Evade ICE Faces New Test")
