States of Resistance: Trump’s Tariffs Face Multi-Front Legal Rebellion

A dozen states sue in trade court while California wages its own war, accusing Trump of hijacking emergency powers to bulldoze the Constitution and wreck the economy

A coalition of a dozen states, blue states, mostly, but economically diverse and with substantial trading economies, have filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade, alleging that Trump’s tariffs are not just economically catastrophic, but also outright unconstitutional. At the heart of the complaint is Trump’s abuse of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law intended to respond to actual foreign threats, not to serve as a catch-all for presidential whimsy or protectionist tantrums.

The states aren’t just grumbling. They’re arguing that Trump has upended the separation of powers by claiming the unilateral ability to slap tariffs on whatever he pleases, under the flimsy justification of a “national emergency.” This isn’t some fringe legal theory, it’s a direct challenge to the Executive’s attempt to usurp Congress’s exclusive authority to regulate trade and levy taxes. In other words, Trump’s trying to turn IEEPA into a one-man trade policy machine, and the states are calling it what it is, illegal.

Arizona AG Kris Mayes didn’t mince words, calling the scheme “insane.” Connecticut’s AG William Tong went further, labeling the tariffs a “massive tax” and “a disaster.” These aren’t just economic complaints, they’re constitutional alarms. The lawsuit directly accuses the administration of turning tariff policy into an instrument of chaos, driven by Trump’s moods rather than any coherent, lawful authority.

And while this case moves forward in New York, California is waging its own legal war in federal court, with Governor Newsom warning that the nation’s largest importing state could hemorrhage billions. The White House’s response? A classic mix of deflection and buzzwords. Spokesperson Kush Desai called it a necessary fight against a vaguely defined “national emergency” that somehow leaves “our workers behind” even as domestic manufacturers, retailers, and consumers alike are begging for relief.

It’s hard to overstate the stakes here. If Trump wins this legal fight, he’ll effectively have carte blanche to use emergency powers as an all-purpose legislative sledgehammer, tariffs today, maybe capital controls or digital currency bans tomorrow. But if the courts agree with the states, we could see a judicial firewall restored against the slow erosion of congressional power.

• The multi-state lawsuit (filed by Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont) was filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, which specifically handles cases related to customs and trade law. This is a highly strategic venue, often used when challenging import duties and tariff structures imposed by the federal government.

• California’s lawsuit, on the other hand, was filed last week in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. That suit is more focused on the state-specific economic damages, including the billions of dollars California could lose as the nation’s largest port and importer.

So while both suits challenge Trump’s tariffs as unconstitutional and economically destructive, they have not been consolidated yet. They represent parallel legal fronts in what’s quickly shaping up to be a coordinated offensive by Democratic-led states against Trump’s use of emergency powers to unilaterally rewrite trade policy.

Depending on how these suits proceed, we may eventually see pressure to consolidate them or for the Supreme Court to weigh in if the rulings diverge. But for now, California is operating solo while the other states have joined forces in a unified action in trade court.