'Losing every step of the way': 25 states challenge Trump's latest 10-12.5% import tariffs on 60 nations including India 

Donald Trump's tariff strategy is in court again. A coalition of 25 Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit on Monday in the US Court of International Trade in New York, challenging tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 trading partners, including India, that came into effect last month. The states are debating that the Trump administration is deliberately circumventing a series of court rulings that have already struck down similar measures by switching to a different legal basis each time.

The disputed tariffs were imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law traditionally used to target specific countries or industries engaged in unfair trade practices. The Trump administration has framed the duties as a response to trading partners that have not done enough to prevent exports made with forced labour.

The states' argument

The 25 states — including Oregon and New York, contend that Section 301 was never designed to be used as a mechanism for broad global tariffs covering nearly all US imports. Their complaint argues that the administration is essentially using forced labour as a legal pretext to reimpose the sweeping import duties that courts have already ruled unlawful under other statutes.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield was direct in his criticism: "Despite losing every step of the way, Trump is trying yet again to inflict more chaos on working families and homegrown Oregon businesses."

What the tariffs cover

The tariffs, announced on July 24, apply to imports from 60 trading partners including the European Union and India. Some countries received lower rates after strengthening their own forced labour enforcement. India's rate was reduced from 12.5% to 10%, according to a senior administration official. Certain categories of goods were exempted from the tariffs entirely, including oil, natural gas, fertilisers, and products qualifying for duty-free treatment under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer defended the measures at the time of announcement. "The United States has had a forced labour import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it's well past time for our trading partners to do the same," he said.

A third legal strategy

The latest tariffs represent the Trump administration's third attempt to sustain sweeping import duties after successive legal defeats. Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give the president authority to impose broad global tariffs, striking down one of Trump's primary trade instruments. Trump then turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose temporary worldwide tariffs — those were subsequently also ruled unlawful by the Court of International Trade, though they remained in place during an appeal.

With both earlier options legally challenged, the administration has now pivoted to Section 301. Trump used the same provision during his first term to impose tariffs on China, and those held up in court precisely because they targeted a specific country for specific practices. Critics of the current approach argue that applying Section 301 on a near-global scale goes far beyond what the law was intended to permit.

Trump has consistently championed tariffs as a tool for rebuilding US manufacturing and rebalancing global trade despite the legal headwinds. His administration shows no sign of abandoning the approach regardless of the court challenges ahead.