On March 5, 2026, a coalition of two dozen state attorneys general filed suit seeking to overturn President Trump’s newly announced 10 percent tariff on imports from around the world. The challenge, led by Democratic attorneys general from Oregon, New York, California and Arizona, argues the administration exceeded its legal authority and attempted to circumvent last month’s Supreme Court ruling that struck down the president’s earlier tariff program. The lawsuit arrives as businesses press for refunds of more than $100 billion in duties collected under the administration’s trade actions, and it sets up another courtroom fight over the scope of executive power in trade policy.
Key takeaways
- On March 5, 2026, 24 state attorneys general sued to block a new 10% global import tariff imposed by the president.
- The suit is led by Democratic AGs from Oregon, New York, California and Arizona and alleges the administration lacked statutory authority.
- Last month the Supreme Court invalidated the administration’s prior country-specific duties, prompting a shift in legal strategy.
- The administration invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs up to 15% for 150 days, to justify the new levy.
- Businesses seeking refunds already claim more than $100 billion in collected duties, triggering separate litigation over reimbursements.
- The lawsuit frames the move as a broader fight over executive power and separation of powers in trade policy.
- If courts enjoin the tariff, federal revenue projections and the administration’s trade agenda would face immediate disruption.
Background
President Trump’s second-term economic plan has placed tariffs at its center, using import duties to try to shift supply chains, bolster domestic manufacturing, and raise revenue. Initially, the administration relied on a decades-old economic emergency authority to impose targeted, country-by-country duties without Congress’s approval. In late February, the Supreme Court delivered a major setback by ruling that the administration’s prior legal theory for those duties was unlawful, nullifying the primary instrument the White House had used to implement its trade strategy.
Facing that defeat, the administration moved quickly to alternative statutory tools to continue its agenda. Officials invoked a different, lesser-known provision of the Trade Act of 1974—Section 122—which permits short-term tariffs of up to 15 percent for as long as 150 days. The new 10 percent global tariff reflects that pivot: it is nationwide in scope rather than country-specific, and the administration says it falls within Section 122’s limited emergency window.
Main event
The lawsuit filed March 5 asserts that the president’s imposition of a 10 percent across-the-board import tax exceeds executive authority and effectively sidesteps the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. Plaintiffs argue the move was designed to evade judicial constraints on the administration’s preferred legal route and to continue a policy that the high court rejected. The complaint seeks an injunction blocking the tariff and a judicial declaration that the administration acted unlawfully.
Attorneys general in the complaint frame the tariff as an unprecedented expansion of unilateral executive power, saying the administration refused to await congressional action or to abide by the high court’s limits. The suit documents how the new levy will affect state budgets, consumer prices and local industries, and it asks the court to consider both statutory text and constitutional separation-of-powers principles. The White House did not respond to requests for comment as the states filed the papers.
Meanwhile, corporations and importers already engaged in litigation over refunds of duties collected under earlier tariff rounds have reopened pressure on federal courts and agencies. Those businesses are seeking returns of more than $100 billion in payments, arguing the prior tariffs were unlawful. The new global tariff could both complicate and accelerate that litigation by altering the practical stakes for importers and insurers.
Analysis & implications
The suit raises a core legal question: whether the president can use successive statutory authorities to maintain a trade program the Supreme Court has constrained. If courts accept the states’ argument, the administration’s ability to rely on executive-only mechanisms for broad trade policy would be sharply limited, pushing major trade decisions back to Congress. That outcome would curb rapid tariff actions but also potentially politicize trade policy, since congressional action can be slow and contentious.
If the courts instead uphold the administration’s use of Section 122 or another statute, it would signal that the executive branch retains considerable discretion over short-term trade measures. Such a precedent could embolden future presidents to layer authorities in response to judicial setbacks, expanding the practical reach of executive-driven economic tools without legislative approval. That dynamic would have long-term implications for international partners, supply chains and global trade governance.
Economically, a sustained 10 percent global tariff would raise import prices for consumers and businesses, potentially feeding inflationary pressure and disrupting industries that rely on international inputs. The stated goal of boosting domestic manufacturing could be partially achieved, but at the cost of higher production expenses and strained trade relations. Financially, even a short-term levy generating tens of billions in revenue would leave unresolved questions about refund claims and the treatment of funds if courts later declare the tariff unlawful.
Comparison & data
| Measure | Scope | Authority invoked | Rate / Duration | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prior country-by-country duties | Selected countries | Decades-old economic emergency statute | Varied; struck down Feb 2026 | Invalidated by Supreme Court in late February 2026 |
| New global tariff | Worldwide imports | Section 122, Trade Act of 1974 | 10% (admin cited up to 15% for 150 days) | Filed March 5, 2026 lawsuit seeks injunction |
| Refund claims | Importers and businesses | Court challenges to duties collected | >$100 billion sought | Separate litigation over reimbursements ongoing |
The table above outlines the core differences between the administration’s early and current legal approaches. The prior program was country-targeted and relied on a broad emergency claim; the current measure is nationwide and rests on a short-term statutory authority. The practical effect for businesses and consumers depends on how long courts allow the new tariff to stand and whether refunds are ordered for earlier collections.
Reactions & quotes
“The president has made clear that he is going to impose worldwide tariffs by any means necessary,”
Coalition of state attorneys general (lawsuit filing)
The states used that language to argue the administration sought to circumvent judicial limits and to press their separation-of-powers claim. Their filing emphasizes the potential for lasting harm to state economies and the rule of law if the executive can repeatedly pivot between statutory authorities.
“An exercise of completely unrestrained executive power,”
Coalition of state attorneys general (lawsuit filing)
This phrase appears in the complaint to underscore the plaintiffs’ constitutional theory: that unilateral tariff-making at this scale, without congressional authorization, violates the Constitution’s structural limits. The filing seeks both a preliminary injunction and a declaratory judgment to halt the tariff while litigation proceeds.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the administration will extend the tariff beyond Section 122’s 150-day window remains unconfirmed and would likely trigger new legal challenges.
- It is not yet clear whether courts will fast-track the states’ request for a preliminary injunction or allow the tariff to be collected while litigation continues.
- How courts will treat the more than $100 billion in refund claims tied to earlier duties is unresolved and may proceed on a separate schedule.
Bottom line
The March 5 lawsuit puts the courts at the center of a decisive legal and political contest over who sets U.S. trade policy. If judges side with the states, the administration’s capacity to impose sweeping tariffs unilaterally will be curtailed, pushing more authority to Congress. If the administration prevails, it could cement a pattern of executive-first trade actions that persist despite judicial scrutiny.
For businesses and consumers, the immediate impact hinges on whether courts halt the 10 percent tariff and on the resolution of large refund claims exceeding $100 billion. Observers should watch for expedited judicial rulings, any administrative steps to extend or replace Section 122 measures, and signals from Congress about whether it will assert its legislative role in trade policy.
Sources
- The New York Times (news/press) — original reporting on the March 5, 2026 lawsuit and administration actions.