Attorney General Kris Mayes is leading a coalition of states in an aggressive legal battle against President Trump's unilateral tariff imposition. In a recent motion filed for a preliminary injunction, Mayes is seeking to pause the collection of what has been deemed illegal tariffs on a variety of products from around the globe. These measures were implemented by President Trump without the explicit approval of Congress, a move the coalition argues infringes upon constitutional rights and statutory limitations on presidential powers. According to a statement from the Arizona Attorney General's office, this tariff scheme could severely impact local economies and escalate costs for families and businesses alike.
The motion, which was detailed in the legal complaint filed last month, aims to quickly halt the tariffs that are driving up expenses. The tariffs include a staggering 145 percent on Chinese products, 25 percent on goods from Canada and Mexico, and 10 percent on imports from various other countries. As reported by the AG's office, Mayes alleges these measures not only violate the Constitutional provision that only Congress shall lay taxes but to also represent an economically detrimental policy. "The Court should step in and block the President’s reckless and unlawful tariff scheme before it does even more damage," Mayes said. Furthermore, the AG’s office has submitted economic analyses to the court, demonstrating that the 12 states joining the lawsuit could see a surge in costs by at least $3.4 billion annually due to these tariffs.
The U.S. Court of International Trade has been asked to intervene in what the AGs predict will be a costly measure not just for their states but for the nation. They cite a Federal Reserve report that corroborates their worries, suggesting that businesses "expected elevated input cost growth resulting from tariffs" and are likely to pass these additional costs on to their consumers. The case titled State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00077-GSK-TMR-JAR) is pending and involves a panel of judges who are reviewing the merits of the motion and the far-reaching implications of the tariffs.
At the core of the legal challenge is a constitutional dispute over the division of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The legal team for Mayes argues that President Trump's reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enforce these tariffs is a misuse of the statute. The IEEPA, enacted in 1977, is meant to address "unusual and extraordinary threat" from foreign entities and does not, by default, grant the executive branch the power to arbitrarily impose tariffs, as claimed by the attorneys general. Mayes, joined in this fight by colleagues from Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont, is pressing forward, intent on restoring a balance of power and mitigating the financial strain placed on their respective states and the American people.
.jpg){kind=link}