12 States Challenge All Trump IEEPA Tariff Action at Trade Court

The lawsuit also challenges CBP's series of Cargo Systems Messaging Service guidance documents implementing the tariffs under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The 12 states challenging the tariffs are Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont. The Oregon Department of Justice said in a press release that the case is being led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. The lawsuit marks the fifth major lawsuit to be filed against the tariffs, including one filed by the state of California in a California federal district court (see 2504160042).

Oregon said the states are asking for a preliminary and permanent injunction against CBP from implementing the tariffs. To secure such an injunction, the states will have to show that they likely will suffer irreparable harm without it. In the complaint, the states said they will suffer "increased costs when purchasing necessary equipment and supplies essential to their economies" and that the tariffs force the states to "incur administrative costs."

The complaint is replete with examples of existing public institutions in Oregon, Arizona, New York and Illinois suffering higher costs as a result of the tariffs. For instance, the brief said the University of Oregon is a buyer of "specialized equipment for scientific research" that can only be sourced from abroad. These purchases "frequently include" purchase terms allowing the vendor to make price adjustments to "mitigate the risk of unexpected import costs."

In November, the university bought a "cryogenic single-photon counting detector system," initially purchased at $182,733. However, as a result of the reciprocal tariffs, the customs broker required the university to pay an additional $18,579" prior to delivery, the complaint said.

As for the administrative costs, Oregon said Trump's "erratic swings in trade policy" harm the states' "ability to procure goods and services and to budget for and audit price adjustments." The brief provided multiple examples, including the Oregon Department of Transportation's difficulties in securing bid extensions from general contractors.

Like California's lawsuit, Oregon's complaint emphasized the role of IEEPA in paring back presidential power in the 1970s. The brief highlighted that, during this time, "Congress had grown troubled with the proliferation of emergency declarations under laws" like the Trading with the Enemy Act, IEEPA's predecessor. As a result, Congress passed IEEPA to grant the president the power to regulate imports "in response to certain non-wartime emergencies, while stressing that the triggering event had to be an 'unusual and extraordinary' threat."

The complaint additionally invoked the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals' key Yoshida International v. U.S. decision, in which the court upheld President Richard Nixon's use of TWEA to impose a 10% duty surcharge. Oregon said this decision didn't take into account later actions by Congress to "rein in the President's authority," including Section 122, which lets the president impose an up to 15% tariff to address balance of payments issues. The Yoshida court also stressed that the president can't impose a tariff that's "not reasonably related to the emergency declared," the brief said.

Oregon especially highlighted this point in its complaint, arguing that none of the tariffs imposed by Trump under IEEPA work to actually address the declared "unusual and extraordinary threat." In imposing duties on China, Canada and Mexico, in one way or another, Trump said the tariffs were being imposed to address drug trafficking. The complaint said there's "no connection" between the threats identified by the orders "and the tariffs imposed by the orders."

Regarding Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs, which are meant to tackle bilateral trade deficits, Oregon made the same case. Trump's "nearly worldwide 10 percent tariff level is wholly unconnected to the stated basis of the emergency declaration: it applies without regard to any country’s trade practices or purported threat to domestic industries." The administration has said it means to use the tariffs to "advance unrelated policy objectives in direct contravention of IEEPA," the complaint said, citing statements from Trump and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt laying out these additional objectives.

The complaint indicated that the states intend to challenge the notion that bilateral trade deficits constitute an "unusual and extraordinary threat." The brief said U.S. goods trade deficits are "persistent" and thus "by definition" are not "unusual and extraordinary."

Two counts of Oregon's complaint concern CBP's CSMS messages implementing the tariffs. The brief argued that the messages "are each a final agency action subject to review under the APA" and mark the "consummation" of CBP's "decision-making process because it announces the agency's implementation of the IEEPA Tariff Orders." Oregon argued that the messages are "arbitrary and capricious," since they rely on "factors unrelated to an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' as required under IEEPA" and fail to "consider the economic consequences of the imposition of tariffs."