Oregon leads argument against Trump’s tariffs again

Oregon Leads Second Legal Challenge Against Trump’s Tariffs

WHY IT MATTERS

Oregon is leading a coalition of 24 state attorneys general in a second federal lawsuit challenging President Trump’s authority to impose tariffs on imports. The case, argued Friday before the Court of International Trade in New York, centers on whether the president can legally justify new tariffs under a decades-old trade law after the Supreme Court struck down his initial justification in February. The outcome could determine whether tariffs remain in place or are rolled back, affecting prices for Oregon consumers and businesses.

The lawsuit reflects deepening concern among states that Trump is circumventing judicial limits on executive power. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield is leading the coalition of attorneys general challenging what they view as an unlawful expansion of presidential authority over international commerce.

WHAT HAPPENED

The three-hour hearing took place Friday at the Court of International Trade in New York City, where Oregon and 23 other state attorneys general presented arguments that President Trump lacks legal authority to impose tariffs under the Trade Act of 1974. Rayfield participated in the proceeding virtually and spoke with reporters afterward about the case.

The lawsuit, filed March 5, comes after Trump faced a Supreme Court defeat in late February when the high court struck down his initial tariff authority claim. That claim relied on a 1970s emergency statute giving presidents broad power to regulate international commerce during national emergencies. Rather than abandon tariff efforts, the Trump administration shifted its legal justification.

Trump now argues he can impose tariffs under a provision of the Trade Act of 1974 that authorizes temporary tariffs up to 15% for 150 days to address what the law calls “fundamental international payment problems.” The president has interpreted this language to mean trade deficits—the difference between imports and exports.

Oregon and allied states contend this interpretation is incorrect and that Congress never intended the 1974 law to authorize the type of broad, ongoing tariffs Trump is pursuing. The law was enacted in response to former President Richard Nixon’s decision to abandon the gold standard, which created international financial instability in the early 1970s.

Rayfield used a direct analogy to describe the president’s approach. “If I say, ‘Hey you don’t get to eat that cookie,’ and my son would then blend the cookie up and try to drink it and consume the cookie in a different way,” he said, “that’s effectively what the president’s trying to do.”

BY THE NUMBERS

The lawsuit involves 24 state attorneys general—Oregon plus 23 others—challenging tariff authority. The Trade Act of 1974 allows for temporary tariffs of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days. Trump’s initial tariff authority claim relied on a statute from the 1970s. The Court of International Trade hearing lasted three hours on Friday. A decision is expected within weeks or months, according to Rayfield.

ZOOM OUT

The tariff battle reflects a broader pattern of state-level legal challenges to presidential executive actions. Multiple states have coordinated litigation against federal policies in recent years, using attorneys general as the lead plaintiffs.

The case also highlights ongoing disputes over the scope of executive authority under trade law. President Trump has made tariffs a centerpiece of economic policy, arguing they protect American manufacturing and workers. Opponents argue tariffs raise prices for consumers and businesses, particularly those relying on imported goods.

The shift in Trump’s legal justification—from one statute to another after judicial defeat—is unusual in trade law. The Court of International Trade, which handles specialized trade disputes, is now tasked with interpreting whether the 1974 law can support the president’s tariff agenda.

WHAT’S NEXT

A ruling from the Court of International Trade is expected in the coming weeks or months. Rayfield indicated uncertainty about whether the case will ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, as the first tariff case did.

If the lower court rules against the Trump administration, the federal government is expected to appeal the decision. That appeal would delay any potential refunds of tariffs already paid or broader tariff relief for Oregon businesses and consumers.

The timeline and next court decisions will determine how long Oregon and other states must continue litigation over presidential tariff authority. The outcome will have significant implications for trade policy and the balance of power between the executive branch and the courts over international commerce.