24 State Join Forces To SUE Trump

Donald Trump walking outdoors in formal attire

Twenty-four states just executed a constitutional checkmate against presidential overreach, and the stakes for American families couldn’t be higher.

Quick Take

Oregon-led coalition of 24 states filed lawsuit challenging Trump’s Section 122 tariffs as unconstitutional taxes bypassing Congress
Supreme Court already ruled 6-3 in February 2026 that Trump’s prior tariffs were illegal, striking down over $150 billion in collections
Trump pivoted within weeks to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute never before used for broad trade deficits
Ninety percent of tariff costs fall on American consumers and businesses, raising prices on groceries, energy, and vehicles amid affordability crisis
Case tests whether presidents can circumvent judicial defeats and congressional authority through creative statutory interpretations

The Supreme Court Victory That Wasn’t Final

In February 2026, Chief Justice John Roberts led a 6-3 Supreme Court majority to strike down President Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The ruling was unambiguous: tariffs are taxes, and only Congress levies taxes under the Constitution. Importers immediately pursued refund claims totaling $100 billion to $150 billion. Victory seemed complete. Then Trump responded not with acceptance but with audacity.

The Pivot Nobody Saw Coming

Within two weeks of the Supreme Court loss, Trump’s administration invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a dormant statute allowing the president to impose tariffs up to 15 percent for 150 days when facing “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits.” Legal scholars and state attorneys general immediately recognized the move for what it was: an end-run around the Court’s decision. Section 122 had never before been deployed for broad trade deficits. The statute’s language suggested narrow application to genuine balance-of-payments crises, not the persistent trade imbalances Trump cited. The timing screamed defiance.

Oregon’s Strategic Leadership

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who orchestrated the original 12-state victory before the Supreme Court, assembled an expanded coalition of 24 states. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and State Treasurer Erick Russell joined publicly, framing the new tariffs as “blatantly unconstitutional” and destabilizing to state budgets. Rayfield’s message was direct: “No president levies taxes disguised as tariffs.” Oregon itself faced $670 million in potential refunds from the struck-down tariffs, giving the state both moral authority and material interest in stopping round two.

Why This Matters More Than Legal Procedure

The lawsuit targets not just tariff legality but presidential power itself. If Section 122 stands as applied here, any future president facing judicial defeat can simply select another statute and try again. The Administrative Procedure Act violation claim adds teeth: Trump’s administration failed to justify why Section 122 applies to trade deficits rather than balance-of-payments crises, a technical distinction with constitutional weight. States argue the executive cannot manufacture statutory authority to bypass congressional power.

The Consumer Arithmetic Nobody Discusses

Federal Reserve Bank of New York data shows 90 percent of 2025 tariff costs were passed directly to American consumers and businesses. Groceries cost more. Energy bills climbed. Vehicle prices spiked. Working families already struggling with affordability crises absorbed the tariff burden while wealthy importers and manufacturers lobbied for relief. The new Section 122 tariffs threaten identical outcomes, compounding economic pain for households with no political voice in trade policy.

The Refund Chaos Looming

Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent in the February ruling noted that the refund process remained unclear, left to the administration’s discretion. Importers wait for relief while uncertainty paralyzes investment decisions. If courts block Section 122 tariffs, will new refunds trigger? Will businesses recover losses from the transition period? The constitutional question masks a practical nightmare: American commerce operates in limbo.

"Twenty-Four States Led by Oregon File Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Section 122 Tariffs" https://t.co/SqGRbF04Xc
"This may be the first time a lawsuit filed by blue state governments quoted Milton Friedman" 🔥

— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) March 5, 2026

The 24-state lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade represents more than another round of tariff litigation. It signals whether the Constitution’s separation of powers survives creative statutory interpretation or dissolves into executive flexibility. For families watching grocery prices, the answer determines whether tariffs become permanent features of economic life or temporary excursions into unconstitutional territory. Oregon’s leadership suggests states understand what’s actually at stake.