\n\t\t\t\t\t\tSome two dozen states challenged President Donald Trump\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.The lawsuit is led by attorneys general from Oregon, Arizona, California and New York. \u201cThe focus right now should be on paying people back, not doubling down on illegal tariffs,\u201d said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. The suit comes a day after a judge ruled that companies who paid tariffs under Trump\u2019s old framework should get refunds. White House vows vigorous defenseThe White House said Trump is acting within his power. \u201cThe President is using his authority granted by Congress to address fundamental international payments problems and to deal with our country\u2019s large and serious balance-of-payments deficits,\u201d said spokesman Kush Desai. \u201cThe Administration will vigorously defend the President\u2019s action in court.\u201dThe new suit argues that Trump can\u2019t pivot to Section 122 because it was intended to be used only in specific, limited circumstances \u2014 not for sweeping import taxes. It also contends the tariffs will drive up costs for states, businesses and consumers.Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes pointed to a New York Federal Reserve Bank study that found Americans largely bear the cost of the tariffs, which has been estimated at $1,200 a year per household. \u201cThat is money out of the pockets of American families trying to buy groceries, pay rent and keep their small businesses afloat,\u201d Mayes said.Many of the plaintiff states also successfully sued over Trump\u2019s tariffs imposed under a different law: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).Four days after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping IEEPA tariffs Feb. 20, Trump invoked Section 122 to slap 10% tariffs on foreign goods. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC on Wednesday that the administration would raise the levies to the 15% limit this week.The Democratic states and other critics say the president can\u2019t use Section 122 as a replacement for the defunct tariffs to combat the trade deficit.The Section 122 provision is aimed at what it calls \u201cfundamental international payments problems.\u2019\u2019 At issue is whether that wording covers trade deficits, the gap between what the U.S. sells other countries and what it buys from them. Section 122 arose from the financial crises that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. dollar was tied to gold. Other countries were dumping dollars in exchange for gold at a set rate, risking a collapse of the U.S. currency and chaos in financial markets. But the dollar is no longer linked to gold, so critics say Section 122 is obsolete.Awkwardly for Trump, his own Justice Department argued in a court filing last year that the president needed to invoke the emergency powers act because Section 122 did \u201cnot have any obvious application\u2019\u2019 in fighting trade deficits, which it called \u201cconceptually distinct\u2019\u2019 from balance-of-payment issues.Still, some legal analysts say the Trump administration has a stronger case this time.\u201cThe legal reality is that courts will likely provide President Trump substantially more deference regarding Section 122 than they did to his previous tariffs under IEEPA,\u2019\u2019 Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown University\u2019s Institute of International Economic Law, wrote in a commentary Wednesday.The specialized Court of International Trade in New York, which will hear the states\u2019 lawsuit, wrote last year in its own decision striking down the emergency-powers tariffs that Trump didn\u2019t need them because Section 122 was available to combat trade deficits.Trump does have other legal authorities he can use to impose tariffs, and some have already survived court tests. Duties that Trump imposed on Chinese imports during his first term under Section 301 of the same 1974 trade act are still in place. Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tWASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
Some two dozen states challenged President Donald Trump\u2019s new global tariffs on Thursday, filing a lawsuit over import taxes he imposed after a stinging loss at the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
The Democratic attorneys general and governors in the lawsuit argue that Trump is overstepping his power with planned 15% tariffs<\/a> on much of the world.<\/p>\n Trump has said the tariffs are essential to reduce America\u2019s longstanding trade deficits. He imposed duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court struck down tariffs<\/a> he imposed last year under an emergency powers law.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The lawsuit is led by attorneys general from Oregon, Arizona, California and New York. <\/p>\n