Twelve states sue at the Court of International Trade to block IEEPA tariffs

On 23 April 2025 Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont, filed State of Oregon v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00077, in the U.S. Court of International Trade, challenging Executive Orders 14193 (1 February 2025; Canada fentanyl), 14194 (1 February 2025; Mexico fentanyl), 14195 (1 February 2025; China fentanyl), 14257 (2 April 2025; reciprocal tariff), 14259 (8 April 2025; China rate to 84 per cent) and 14266 (9 April 2025; China rate to 125 per cent).¹ The complaint argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B), authorises the President to “regulate … importation” but does not authorise the imposition of tariffs — the merits theory pleaded two days earlier in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00066 (Ct. Int’l Trade, filed 14 April 2025) — and pleads both sovereign standing (the States’ own fiscal and regulatory interests) and quasi-sovereign standing under Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 518-20 (2007), which accords States “special solicitude” in standing analysis.²³⁴ Named defendants include President Trump, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Acting CBP Commissioner Pete R. Flores, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security; the complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the tariffs are unlawful and a permanent injunction barring their enforcement.¹

1. The complaint alleges that the tariffs raise prices for state residents and producers and reduce state-tax receipts tied to retail and business activity, and that California-style state- level economic exposure attaches to each of the twelve plaintiff States. Massachusetts v. EPA and Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982), supply the parens patriae framework alongside sovereign-standing theory.⁵

2. The U.S. Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions arising out of any law of the United States providing for “tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue” under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1)(B).⁶ An earlier state-AG challenge filed by California — California v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-03372 (N.D. Cal., filed 16 April 2025) — was lodged in federal district court; the Oregon-led coalition pursues the alternative jurisdictional theory by filing in the CIT.⁷

3. The case proceeds in parallel with V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump at the same court. The scope of any equitable remedy will turn on Trump v. CASA, Inc., 145 S. Ct. 2540 (2025), which constrains universal injunctions.⁸ The challenged orders each invoke the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.), § 604 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2483) and 3 U.S.C. § 301 in addition to IEEPA.⁹¹⁰