The new tariffs of Trump, chaos in the US: twenty democratic states file a lawsuit

A bulky blue-bound document, filed on March 5, 2026 at the counter of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York, officially opens a judicial and political dispute of exceptional scope.

A coalition of about twenty states, led by California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Oregon, has sued the Trump administration to stop the new 10% blanket tariff on all imports.

The White House's move comes shortly after a decisive halt from the judiciary. On February 20, 2026, by a vote of 6 to 3, the Supreme Court ruled that the president did not have the authority to impose universal tariffs by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977.

Invoking the major questions doctrine, the justices reiterated a key principle: fiscal policy belongs to Congress and the executive cannot claim powers with such broad economic implications without an express and specific delegation.

Forced to quickly dismantle the tariff framework established in 2025, the administration has resorted to a different legal basis, applying new surcharges as of February 24 under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision allows for temporary increases in border duties of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days to address “serious and severe balance of payments deficits.”

For the White House, this is a fully legitimate power, useful for containing the United States' trade imbalances; the level of 15%, Donald Trump has suggested, could be reached soon.

In stark contrast, the suing states argue that there is a dangerous “legal short circuit.” The complaint emphasizes that Section 122 is a niche tool, designed in the Bretton Woods era to manage currency emergencies, and not a catch-all to replace the tariffs recently struck down under the IEEPA: a use, they argue, in open contradiction with the Constitution.

At the legal front — which unites progressive prosecutors with governors of key states like Kentucky and Pennsylvania — there is also concern about the effects on the real economy: a horizontal levy becomes a "tax on interdependence" throughout the entire supply chain. Studies cited by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimate that the burden will fall entirely on consumers and domestic businesses, with a cost nearing $1,200 per year per family.

Also affecting public and private accounts is the chapter on refunds: on March 4, 2026, a CIT judge recognized importers' full right to refunds of IEEPA duties deemed unlawful, a cut estimated between $130 and $175 billion to be paid to companies, with a significant impact on the cash flows of the private sector.

On the international front, the announcement of a 10% global tariff sounds like an alarm. Trading partners are considering "targeted" retaliations in symbolic sectors such as automotive and agri-food, with the risk of a spiral of counter-tariffs capable of paralyzing WTO headquarters.

Now it is up to the judges of the International Trade Court to rule on any suspensions or confirmations of the measure. However, Section 122 imposes a strict time constraint: after 150 days, the dossier will return to Capitol Hill. In the midterm election year, Congress will have to balance the wave of new protectionism with the shadow of inflation.

At stake is not just a tariff: the stakes are to establish who, in American democracy, decides trade policy when the cost of living and hundreds of billions of dollars are on the table.