25 States Challenge 10-12.5% Tariffs on 60 Countries

For legal professionals, this case tests the boundaries of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974—whether a president can unilaterally impose broad tariffs under the guise of combating forced labour without following procedural safeguards. With a prior Supreme Court loss looming, the administration faces renewed scrutiny over trade policy limits, setting a critical constitutional precedent for executive overreach in international commerce.

On August 3, 2026, a coalition of 25 Democratic-ruled states filed a lawsuit in the US Court of International Trade challenging newly imposed tariffs on over 60 countries that account for 99.4% of American imports. The Trump administration, having recently seen its broader tariff powers clipped by the Supreme Court, repackaged a global 10% levy—which expired on July 24—into a “forced labour” tariff regime under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Rates now range from 10% to 12.5% and hit economies from manufacturing powerhouses in Asia to raw-material suppliers in Africa and Latin America. The suit, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James and Governor Kathy Hochul, argues that the administration is using the forced-labour rationale as a pretext to resurrect sweeping tariffs it has repeatedly failed to enact through other legal channels. At its heart is a separation-of-powers dispute: whether the president can unilaterally impose taxes on foreign commerce without clear congressional authorization or adherence to the procedural guardrails built into Section 301—such as a direct causal link between the targeted practice and the remedy.

“

Yet even the reduced 10% adds a significant cost to Indian exports to the US, particularly in textiles, gems and jewelry, pharmaceuticals, and automotive components—sectors that together shipped over $80 billion in goods to America in 2025.

The legal framework matters. Section 301 was originally designed to address specific unfair trade practices after investigation and negotiation, not to serve as a blanket tariff tool. The lawsuit contends that the administration bypassed required steps: there was no detailed investigation into forced-labour practices on a country-by-country basis, no adequate opportunity for public comment, and no demonstrable connection between the broad tariffs and the stated goal of eradicating forced labour. Instead, the tariffs blanket almost all US imports—countries representing 99.4% of them—with a rate structure that largely mirrors the earlier, expired global levy. This pattern, the states argue, reveals the true motive: revenue generation and protectionism rather than human-rights enforcement.

For India, one of the 60 targeted nations, the policy has already triggered a pre‑emptive compliance measure. On June 14, 2026, India amended its foreign trade policy to ban the import of goods made with forced labour. That move appears to have earned a partial reprieve: the tariff rate was set at 10% rather than the 12.5% initially proposed. Yet even the reduced 10% adds a significant cost to Indian exports to the US, particularly in textiles, gems and jewelry, pharmaceuticals, and automotive components—sectors that together shipped over $80 billion in goods to America in 2025. The lawsuit, if successful, would wipe away that cost layer entirely, restoring free-trade conditions.

From a market perspective, the litigation injects a binary risk event. A favorable ruling for the states would remove an estimated $300‑400 billion in annual tariff costs that would otherwise flow through to importers, retailers, and ultimately consumers. A decision upholding the tariffs would cement a new, structurally higher cost environment for any company reliant on global supply chains—most of corporate America. Early indications from trade lawyers suggest the plaintiffs have a credible case given the Supreme Court’s recent wariness toward expansive executive trade powers, but the outcome is far from certain and could take months to resolve at the trial court level, with appeals almost guaranteed.