Trump's tariffs 'upend constitutional order' and harm state economies, Dem AGs allege

Yahoo

24-04-2025

President Donald Trump speaking at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, on Feb. 22, 2025. Photo by Gage Skidmore | Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0
A dozen Democratic attorneys general, led by the AGs in Arizona and Oregon, filed a lawsuit Wednesday arguing that President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs were illegally implemented and will cause irreparable harm to their constituents.
In the 38-page filing, attorneys general for Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont urged the U.S. Court of International Trade to find that the president's tariffs were issued illegally.
In the past three months, Trump has at various times declared and withdrawn the financial penalties on multiple countries. For now, the White House has settled on a 145% tariff on most products imported from China, 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods and 10% base tariffs on the rest of the world.
Another 57 countries were subject to 'reciprocal' tariffs that were actually based on trade deficits, not existing tariffs that those countries had applied to American goods.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The attorneys general argued that the whiplash of constantly changing tariff rates has injected uncertainty into the country's economy and said the president's misuse of his strictly defined powers violates the U.S. Constitution.
'These edicts reflect a national trade policy that now hinges on the President's whims rather than the sound exercise of his lawful authority,' reads the lawsuit. 'By claiming the authority to impose immense and ever-changing tariffs on whatever goods entering the United States he chooses, for whatever reason he finds convenient to declare an emergency, the President has upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy.'
Arizona AG Kris Mayes, who has mobilized her office to challenge the federal government's actions in thirteen different lawsuits, called the tariffs 'economically reckless' in a news conference announcing the latest lawsuit.
'As Arizona's chief law enforcement officer, I will not stand by while the federal government imposes policies that harm our economy, violates the constitution and ignores the limits of executive power,' she said. 'This lawsuit is about protecting Arizonans and businesses large and small, it is about defending our constitutional system and reminding this administration, yet again, that no one — not even the president of the United States — is above the law.'
The attorneys general argue that only Congress has the power to impose tariffs, and that Trump's bid to circumvent that by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is unlawful. The act, they wrote, makes no mention of tariffs, and only empowers the president to regulate, investigate or block trade while an investigation is ongoing.
With markets cratering, Trump backs down on tariffs with 90-day pause on most
And, they argue, the requirements for Trump to act during peacetime haven't been met. The act grants the president the ability to regulate trade between the United States and other countries if there is an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' that poses a risk to national security, foreign policy or the country's economy.
To satisfy that, Trump has justified his tariffs by accusing Canada and Mexico of not doing enough to stop the flow of fentanyl and China of failing to intercept the chemical precursors that are used to manufacture fentanyl. And while Trump relied on IEEPA to greenlight 10% tariffs against the rest of the world, he provided no reasoning that might comply with the act's requirements.
The lawsuit also notes that applying tariffs to every product from Canada, Mexico and China violates IEEPA, because not every product that is imported from those countries is related to the president's purported goal of addressing the fentanyl crisis.
'The Plaintiff states agree that the fentanyl crisis requires urgent government action, but the imposition of tariffs is neither an effective nor a lawful response to that crisis,' the AGs wrote in the lawsuit. 'The (tariff orders for China, Mexico and Canada) lacks any rationale for the tariff rates imposed and bears no relationship between the goods subject to the Order and the claimed emergency.'
During Wednesday's news conference, Mayes highlighted the damage the tariffs risk causing to the Grand Canyon State's business community and government agencies.
The Democrat, who previously served on the Arizona Corporation Commission, said she has discussed the possibility of increased rates with utility companies in the state, and while they haven't committed to avoiding doing so, they also haven't ruled them out. Mayes pointed out that some utility companies depend on lumber from Canada to erect telephone poles, and others use solar panels, which are largely made in China, or transformers, which come from Europe, China and South America.
Likewise, the Arizona Department of Transportation is already seeing prices rise, and Mayes said that will ultimately increase the cost of highway and road construction.
Bill Sandweg, the owner of Copper Star Coffee in central Phoenix, said that his business depends on ingredients that are grown in other countries, with climates that cannot be replicated in the United States, and specialty equipment that isn't manufactured in the country. He said that he buys around $5,000 worth of spices from India every year, but the new tariffs have increased that cost to $7,500.
Sandweg called the tariffs 'taxation without representation' and warned that, if they aren't reduced, his costs will eventually be transferred to consumers.
This isn't the first lawsuit the White House has had to contend with in the wake of its tariff policies. Last week, California launched its own legal challenge in federal court that similarly attacked the president's use of his emergency powers to impose tariffs. And a Florida woman who owns a stationary business went to court to contest the fact that her voice, and those of other U.S. citizens, was ignored because the tariffs weren't subject to congressional debate.
A group of small businesses also filed a lawsuit against Trump's use of the IEEPA in the U.S. Court of International Trade on April 14. On Wednesday, a panel of judges overseeing the case decided against freezing the tariffs while litigation continues. A hearing is scheduled on May 13 for the court to consider the issue.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE