Breaking News! Trump’s Tariff Policies Face Risk of Total Invalidity

Trump’s Tariff Policies Face Total Invalidity Risk as 12 States Sue
The U.S. Court of International Trade has initiated a judicial review into the legality of the Trump administration’s tariff policies. The lawsuit, jointly filed by 12 states including New York, Arizona, and Colorado, focuses on the legal basis for the administration’s invocation of the "national emergency" clause to impose tariffs .

The litigation directly challenges the tariff increases on China announced by Trump on April 2, with plaintiffs demanding a complete repeal of the policies. The central debate in court centered on the scope of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA)—whether the president has the unilateral authority to initiate tariff measures through this act. If the court ultimately rules that Trump’s tariff policies implemented under the "national emergency" pretext exceed statutory authority, most of the tariffs imposed since his inauguration this year could be deemed invalid .

---

12 States Jointly Sue Over Trump’s Tariff Policies in Major Legal Challenge
The U.S. Court of International Trade recently heard a lawsuit filed by 12 states, putting Trump’s tariff measures under legal scrutiny amid "national emergency" declarations. The core dispute revolves around the legal legitimacy of the tariff increases, particularly the administration’s interpretation and application of the IEEPA .

Attorneys general from the 12 states strongly questioned the April 2 tariff hikes on China, demanding their complete elimination. During the trial, both sides clashed over the authorized scope of the IEEPA. Plaintiffs argued that the administration’s interpretation of the IEEPA was fundamentally flawed, noting that the act is intended to grant the president authority to take economic measures only in "extraordinary and extreme circumstances," not as a routine means to impose tariffs. They highlighted that Trump’s high-profile announcements of "reciprocal tariffs" on social media clearly violated the act’s legislative purpose. The plaintiffs contended that Trump had abused his power, undermining the established U.S. trade policy system, harming state economies, weakening the global competitiveness of American businesses, and disrupting public economic life .

Since taking office, the Trump administration has implemented a wide range of tariff policies, including a 10% "minimum baseline tariff" and "reciprocal tariffs" on global trade partners, a 20% tariff on China related to fentan, and a 25% tariff on imported automobiles. These tariff measures were all based on three "national emergency" declarations made by Trump’s team between February and April .

Trump’s tariff policies have sparked widespread controversy and chain reactions both domestically and internationally since their implementation. At home, consumers face rising prices, businesses dependent on imported raw materials have seen significantly increased production costs, and certain industries have struggled to develop. Internationally, U.S. relations with many trading partners have become strained, global trade order has been disrupted, and trade frictions have escalated continuously .

In fact, this is not the first legal challenge to the Trump administration’s tariff policies, which currently face at least seven lawsuits. On April 16, for example, California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California Federal Court, arguing that the IEEPA only authorizes the president to freeze and block trade activities in the face of foreign threats, not to impose tariffs. He requested the court to declare the tariffs invalid and prohibit their implementation .

---

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s April 2 Tariffs, Rules on Overreach
According to CCTV News, on May 28 local time, it was learned that a U.S. federal court had blocked the implementation of the tariff policies announced by Trump on April 2 ("Liberation Day") and ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing comprehensive tariffs on countries with higher exports to the U.S. than imports .

The Court of International Trade in Manhattan, New York, stated that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to regulate trade with other nations, and the president’s emergency powers exercised in the name of protecting the U.S. economy do not supersede these powers .

The lawsuit was brought by the nonprofit, nonpartisan litigation organization Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five U.S. small businesses affected by the tariffs, marking the first major legal challenge to Trump’s tariff policies .