A coalition of 24 Democratic attorneys general and governors filed a lawsuit Thursday in the U.S. Court of International Trade, targeting President Trump's newly imposed global tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania joined as plaintiffs since both states have Republican attorneys general, leaving the governors to step in themselves.

The lawsuit, led by attorneys general from Oregon, New York, California, and Arizona - with 18 additional states piling on - argues Trump invented a legal pretext to keep tariffs alive after the Supreme Court handed him a 6-3 defeat on tariffs last month.

That ruling held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize tariff-setting, because "regulate" does not encompass taxing power. 

Trump signed Proclamation No. 11012 the same day, slapping a 10 percent ad valorem tariff on most worldwide imports effective February 24 under Section 122, a statute that had never been invoked in the 52 years since its enactment. Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent confirmed on March 4 that the rate would climb to 15 percent — the statutory ceiling — within the week.

"The President is trying to exploit a little-known statute as a means for his tariffs and is again proceeding unlawfully," said California Attorney Rob Bonta.

The named defendants include President Trump in his official capacity, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Secretary. Kristi Noem, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Commissioner Rodney S. Scott. Plaintiffs are also requesting a three-judge panel given the constitutional stakes under 28 U.S.C. § 255. 

Despite the lawsuit, it has been clear since that, despite the Supreme Court ruling saying that Trump couldn’t implement tariffs under IEEPA, he had other statutes under which he could.

"The administration has other tools in its toolbox," Constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley told Fox News last month after the Supreme Court ruling. "It can actually impose tariffs under other statutes, so this fight is hardly over for the administration when it comes to tariffs." 

With that in mind, the White House does not seem rattled by the lawsuit.

 "The President is utilizing the authority bestowed upon him by Congress to tackle fundamental international payment issues and to address the significant balance-of-payments deficits our country is facing," spokesperson Kush Desai said. "The Administration will robustly defend the President's actions in court."

This wouldn’t be the first time an administration found ways around a Supreme Court ruling against it.

In June 2023, a 6-3 Supreme Court majority struck down the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness program in Biden v. Nebraska, ruling the administration had overstepped its authority by attempting to cancel roughly $400 billion in federal debt without explicit congressional authorization. 

Biden's response was to keep going anyway. 

His administration pursued alternative legal pathways to deliver partial relief, dismissing objections as political obstruction. In fact, Joe Biden used to brag about how he was defying the Supreme Court. "Early in my term, I announced a major plan to provide millions of working families with debt relief for their college student debt," Biden said. "Tens of millions of people in debt were literally about to be canceled in debts. But my MAGA Republican friends in the Congress, elected officials and special interests stepped in and sued us. And the Supreme Court blocked it. But that didn’t stop me."

The spectacle of 24 Democratic officials filing an emergency lawsuit over a president finding a new statutory route after a court loss, while their own party spent two years celebrating exactly that maneuver, is typical of the Democratic Party. Democrats also have come out in opposition to Trump’s bombing of Iran without congressional approval, despite their widespread approval of similar bombing campaigns without congressional approval by both Barack Obama and Joe Biden.