Oregon likewise played a pivotal role in earlier tariff litigation.
Today, twenty-five state governments that are largely controlled by Democrats filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s sweeping new Section 301 tariffs. The complaint, lodged with the US Court of International Trade, can be viewed here. Oregon leads the case, a role it has played in guiding state challenges to prior Trump tariffs deemed unlawful—including the IEEPA tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court in February (the Oregon action was consolidated with one I helped pursue on behalf of small private businesses harmed by the tariffs)—as well as the more recent ruling invalidating Trump’s Section 122 tariffs. I want to acknowledge Oregon Deputy Attorney General Ben Gutman and his legal team for their invaluable work on these matters.
I have previously argued that the Section 301 tariffs—justified on the grounds of combating forced labor—are illegal and likely to worsen the US economy and our credibility with trading partners. This marks the third lawsuit challenging the Section 301 tariffs. In earlier posts, I discussed the action filed by the Liberty Justice Center (the public-interest group I worked with in the IEEPA case) on behalf of two small businesses, and another suit brought by several firms, including Learning Resources, Inc., a toy manufacturer whose case was consolidated with ours in the IEEPA proceedings and ultimately lent its name to the Supreme Court decision.
The state case adopts arguments similar to the other two, focusing largely on numerous ways in which the Trump tariffs violate the various requirements of Section 301. The crux is that the administration appears to repurpose a statute designed to address specific trading practices as a broad authorisation to launch a sweeping trade war with nearly all of our major trading partners.
As with the LJC suit, this action—if it succeeds—would likely block the enforcement of the Section 301 tariffs across the board. It seems unlikely that the court could halt the collection of tariffs against twenty-five states without effectively pausing them nationwide. The LJC, for its part, is seeking class-action certification which, if granted, would produce a result largely similar to that outcome.
I would encourage the states to also develop arguments centered on the major-questions doctrine and nondelegation principles. I have previously explained how those points—crucial in the IEEPA litigation—are equally pertinent in these cases (see here and here).
I believe it is likely that the Court of International Trade will consolidate the three cases and issue a joint ruling.
I expect to have more to say about this litigation in the near future. Stay tuned!
