A new round of tariffs landed on 60 countries at once, and the same coalition of state attorneys general that’s been fighting this fight since last spring is back in court asking a judge to shut it down.
On August 3, a coalition of 25 states walked into the U.S. Court of International Trade, a court most people couldn’t find on a map, and filed a lawsuit that has almost nothing to do with trade law and everything to do with the price tag on your kid’s new sneakers. We got enough questions about this one from readers that it made sense to just answer them in order.
Didn’t states already sue over tariffs? More than once?
They did. This is round three. The first suit came in April 2025, when a coalition of states argued the administration had no authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law written for sanctioning enemies and freezing terrorist assets, not for taxing imported furniture. In February of this year, the Supreme Court agreed with them. It ruled that IEEPA does not give a president the power to impose tariffs like that. The administration lost, but it didn’t stop.
So what changed? What’s the legal argument this time?
A different statute. When the IEEPA tariffs were struck down, the White House leaned on a temporary 10% tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, a provision that’s only supposed to last 150 days. That clock ran out on July 24. Nine days later, new tariffs of 10% to 12.5% showed up on goods from 60 trading partners, justified this time under Section 301, a statute meant to punish countries for unfair trade practices, in this case an accusation that these countries aren’t doing enough to stop goods made with forced labor from entering the U.S.
The states calling foul say that reasoning doesn’t hold up. Their complaint argues the forced labor rationale is a legal costume, dressing up the same tariff policy the Supreme Court already rejected in language that sounds more defensible in court.
Which states actually signed on?
New York is leading it, joined by Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Every one of them has a Democratic attorney general or governor, which tells you this is as much a political fight as a legal one.
Why should this matter to someone who has never read a trade statute in their life?
Because the countries covered by these tariffs account for roughly 99.4% of everything the U.S. imports. That’s not a niche policy affecting a handful of specialty goods. That’s clothing, electronics, toys, car parts, and food, all moving through ports with a new tax attached, and companies don’t quietly absorb that cost. It shows up later, usually on a receipt, usually without an explanation. If you’ve noticed school supplies or grocery prices creeping in ways that don’t quite make sense, this lawsuit is part of the answer.
“The tariffs apply to countries responsible for about 99.4% of all U.S. imports,” according to the states’ own filing.
, U.S. Court of International Trade complaint, filed Aug. 3, 2026
What are the states actually asking the judge to do?
Two things: block the tariffs from being enforced going forward, and order the government to refund the duties companies have already paid. Neither is guaranteed. The court sided with states on the IEEPA question, but Section 301 is a different legal animal with its own history and its own limits, and the administration will argue it’s on firmer ground this time.
How long does something like this take?
Trade litigation rarely moves fast. Expect months, not weeks, before there’s a real ruling, and expect an appeal regardless of who wins the first round. In the meantime, the tariffs stay in effect, which means the honest answer to “will this fix prices soon” is probably not soon enough to matter for this year’s holiday shopping.
Worth asking yourself next time you’re at checkout: how much of what you’re paying is the product, and how much of it is a policy fight playing out three courtrooms away from you?
Quick Answers
Q: What are the new tariffs, exactly?
A: Tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 trading partners, imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act starting in late July 2026, after an earlier temporary tariff expired on July 24.
Q: Which states are suing, and who’s leading it?
A: 25 Democratic-led states filed suit on August 3, 2026, with New York’s attorney general leading the coalition. It’s the third tariff-related lawsuit this group has filed since April 2025.
Q: Has the Supreme Court already ruled on tariffs like this?
A: In February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration’s earlier tariffs, imposed under a different law (IEEPA), exceeded presidential authority. This new case tests a different legal justification.
