Twenty-five Democratic-led states are taking the Trump administration to court over its latest tariffs, arguing that the president is essentially trying to sneak in the same import taxes that courts have already struck down as illegal.

On Monday, the coalition filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, challenging President Donald Trump's tariffs on imports from 60 trading partners. The states, including Oregon and New York, are all led by Democratic attorneys general or governors. This legal action follows a similar suit filed by small U.S. businesses.

The tariffs were imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law designed to counter unfair trade practices. While previous administrations used Section 301 to target specific countries or industries, the states argue that Trump's sweeping tariffs, which apply to over 99% of U.S. imports, are unprecedented. They claim the new duties unlawfully reuse "forced labor" as a justification to reinstate tariffs that courts had already ruled illegal. The states also contend that broad import taxes won't effectively address the underlying issue of forced labor worldwide.

"Despite losing every step of the way, Trump is trying yet again to inflict more chaos on working families and homegrown Oregon businesses," Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement to Reuters.

White House spokesman Kush Desai pushed back, saying the U.S. is lawfully using its authority to address practices that burden American businesses. He argued that countries failing to curb imports made with forced labor are acting unreasonably and must address the issue.

Trump Defends New Tariff Strategy

The administration imposed new tariffs of 10% and 12.5% on 60 trading partners, including the European Union, on July 23, citing forced labor concerns. The new duties took effect as a previous 10% global tariff expired. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the tariffs apply to 99.4% of U.S. imports.

Last week, Trump said his administration's newly imposed tariffs are effectively the same as those the Supreme Court previously ruled illegal, but implemented through more complex legal avenues after the court's decision. He also dismissed concerns about short-term economic impacts, claiming the tariffs have generated significant revenue for the U.S. and helped prevent conflicts.

Legal experts, however, say tariffs imposed under Section 301 are more likely to survive court challenges because the law explicitly authorizes them. They also argue that measures targeting forced labor give the administration broad flexibility. Nick Baker, co-lead of the Trade and Customs practice at Kroll, expects the new tariff framework to become the long-term standard for U.S. trade policy.