More than 20 states sue over new global tariffs Trump imposed after his stinging Supreme Court loss

[OKIsItJustMe]

Source: Associated Press

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST and PAUL WISEMAN
Updated 1:22 PM EST, March 5, 2026

WASHINGTON (AP) — Some two dozen states challenged President Donald Trump’s new global tariffs on Thursday, filing a lawsuit over import taxes he imposed after a stinging loss at the Supreme Court.

The Democratic attorneys general and governors in the lawsuit argue that Trump is overstepping his power with planned 15% tariffs on much of the world.

Trump has said the tariffs are essential to reduce America’s longstanding trade deficits. He imposed duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court struck down tariffs he imposed last year under an emergency powers law.

Section 122, which has never been invoked, allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15%. They are limited to five months unless extended by Congress.

…

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/global-15-tariffs-trump-lawsuit-2247451a7cbc9b8283c4574e3ee54537

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. See: Trump's new tariffs are just as illegal as his old tariffs

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221047283

There's a difference between a balance-of-payments deficit, which that law is for, and a trade deficit, which it isn't.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. He doesn't care

How long was it before SCotUS struck down the others?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. Democratic state attorneys general sue Trump over tariffs

The lawsuit accuses the president of trying to “sidestep” a Supreme Court ruling that overturned many of his previous levies.

Link to tweet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/03/05/tariffs-lawsuit-democrats

A coalition of Democratic-led states sued President Donald Trump on Thursday in the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing that his newly imposed across-the-board tariffs are illegal.

The suit is led by the Democratic attorneys general from Oregon, New York, California and Arizona along with attorneys general from 18 other states.

They accused Trump of trying to “sidestep” a February Supreme Court ruling that overturned many of his tariffs by using a different statute, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, as justification for new tariffs.

“The President is attempting to use an obscure law as a tool for his tariffs, and is yet again, going about it illegally,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement.....

Trump turned to Section 122 after the Supreme Court struck down his original slate of widespread tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In a 6-3 ruling, the court determined there was nothing in the 1977 law to authorize Trump’s tariffs.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal

trump's new replacement tariffs are illegal. These tariffs can only be used when there is a balance-of-payments deficit which is very different from a balance of trade deficit. Since the US is no longer on a currency fixed exchange rate there have not been any balance of payment deficits for a couple of decades. These tariffs will be challenged and trump will lose again

Fascinating National Review post on Trump's latest Tariff gambit. Archive link here (it's pay walled, please don't give them money lol)

archive.is/r4Xdf

— Rude Law Dog (@esghound.com) 2026-02-21T19:01:57.437Z

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trumps-section-122-tariffs-are-illegal/

In Section 122, Congress endowed the president with narrow, temporary authority to impose tariffs �to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits� (emphasis added). What Trump is complaining about � something he insists is a crisis but is not � is the balance of trade, not of payments. The United States does not have an overall balance of payments deficit, much less a large and serious one.

A trade deficit between the U.S. and a foreign nation occurs, mainly in connection with goods (which is just one aspect of international commerce), when imports are greater than exports. This is not really a problem for a variety of reasons � e.g., a trade deficit results in an investment surplus, the U.S. is a major services economy and often runs exported services surpluses that mitigate the imports deficit in goods, etc.

The balance of payments is a broader concept than the balance of trade. It accounts for all the economic transactions that take place between the United States and the rest of the world. Even without getting into every kind of transaction that entails, suffice it to say that foreign investment in the United States, coupled with the advantages our nation accrues because the dollar is the world�s reserve currency, more than make up for the longstanding trade deficit in goods.

Our overall payments are in balance. There is no crisis.

It�s vital to understand why Section 122 was enacted. There was a financial crisis in the late 60s and early 70s under the Bretton Woods system, when the dollar was tied to gold. Foreign countries that held dollar reserves could exchange them for gold at a fixed rate. Meanwhile, our government was spending at a high clip due to the Vietnam War and Great Society programs. This and the obligation to pay out gold put enormous pressure on the dollar. In response, in 1971, President Nixon severed the dollar�s tie to gold and � as several justices recounted in Friday�s Learning Resources opinions � imposed a temporary 10 percent import surcharge (a tariff) to stabilize the economy......

There is no rationale under Section 122 to impose tariffs. Because President Trump has no unilateral authority to order tariffs, he must meet the preconditions of Section 122 to justify levying them. He cannot. Not even close.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Stepping into the "Wayback Machine" we travel back to the days of "W"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community#Origin

The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [...] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.

You see, we can protest as much as we like that these tariffs are illegal (just as the previous ones were.) PotUS doesn’t care. He puts them in place, and they stand for now.

Was the invasion of Venezuela legal? Who cares⁉️ It’s done. Was the attack on Iran legal? (How about the one last year?) It doesn’t matter. It’s history now.

It’s really no different than the East Wing of the White House; it really doesn’t matter what a court decides, as to whether he acted legally or not; the East Wing is gone.

This is really nothing new for this man.
https://prn.library.cornell.edu/?a=d&d=PRN19800701.1.2