States Sue Over Tariffs Again After the Supreme Court Ruling

Last verified: Aug. 4, 2026, UTC. This is a litigation-status tracker, not legal advice.

The short answer for anyone searching “states sue trump tariffs supreme court ruling” is this: the states are suing again because the new case is not brought under the statute the Supreme Court already rejected. The February ruling decided the IEEPA theory. The Section 122 replacement was separately enjoined and then expired. The August lawsuit attacks a third tariff program, now tied to Section 301 and described by the states as a forced-labor measure used as a pretext to replace the earlier tariffs.

Current status at a glance

That table is the working record. If a memo, client alert, or news brief says only that “the tariffs were struck down,” it has already lost the thread. The live question is which tariffs, under which statute, in which court, and whether the operative measure is decided, expired, or pending.

Why the Supreme Court ruling did not end the August lawsuit

The Supreme Court’s February ruling matters because it closed the administration’s IEEPA route. In Learning Resources, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give the President authority to impose the challenged tariffs; SCOTUSblog reported the decision as a 6-3 ruling and noted that the companion V.O.S. Selections judgment was affirmed. [1]

But IEEPA and Section 301 are not interchangeable labels. Section 301 is a trade statute, not the emergency-powers statute the Court addressed in February. That is why the August case cannot be marked as “already won” by the states merely because the IEEPA tariffs fell. The question shifts from whether IEEPA contains tariff authority to whether the Section 301 program fits that statute’s available hook and process.

The states’ bridge between the old ruling and the new case is pretext. As reported by AP and Scripps, the August challengers argue that the administration’s forced-labor framing is being used to replace a broad tariff program the Court already rejected. [6][7] That allegation is the center of the new lawsuit, but it is still an allegation. No court has accepted it on the current record.

That distinction is not academic housekeeping. If the court treats the Section 301 tariffs as a genuine statutory response to forced-labor concerns, the IEEPA decision may be relevant background rather than a controlling answer. If the court accepts the states’ pretext theory, the earlier ruling becomes more than background: it becomes part of the explanation for why the new tariff program is allegedly an unlawful substitute.

The three statutory hooks are doing different work

A clean statutory scorecard prevents two common errors. The first is treating the February Supreme Court ruling as a blanket tariff ban. It was not; it was a decision about IEEPA authority. The second is treating Section 122 as the same controversy now pending in August. It belongs in the chronology because it explains the administration’s second route, but by the present verification date it is an enjoined-and-expired episode, not the live docket.

The remaining separation-of-powers question is broad, but the briefing task is narrow. A court can reject one statutory hook without deciding every later tariff statute. SCOTUSblog’s post-ruling analysis treated remaining tariff questions as unresolved after the IEEPA decision, which is the safer way to read the February case. [9]

Round 1: the IEEPA tariffs are decided

Round 1 is the cleanest row. On Feb. 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose the challenged tariffs. The decision was reported as 6-3, with the V.O.S. Selections companion case affirmed. [1]

For citation purposes, that means the IEEPA tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court. It does not mean every later tariff imposed by the administration was struck down, and it does not mean a court has already ruled on the Aug. 3 Section 301 complaint.

Round 2: Section 122 filled the gap, then left it

The Section 122 episode is easy to mishandle because it sits between the headline Supreme Court ruling and the new August filing. New York’s March 5 release described a coalition challenge led by Attorney General Letitia James and said the suit sought to stop the administration’s latest tariffs, including refunds for affected states; the release put New York’s claimed refund figure at $13.5 billion. [2] Reuters also reported the March 5 suit and its challenge to the administration’s latest global tariffs. [3]

The coalition count should be cited with its source. New York described 24 states, made up of 22 attorneys general plus the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania. [2] That is not the same as the 25-state August suit, and it should not be blended with it.

The timing also needs care. The authoritative Supreme Court ruling date for the IEEPA case is Feb. 20, 2026. [1] The New York release’s timing language should not be used to move that date or to collapse the Section 122 proclamation into the Supreme Court judgment. [2]

On May 7, 2026, the Court of International Trade issued a 2-1 permanent injunction in litigation involving Basic Fun!, Burlap & Barrel, and Washington state, with reporting describing the Section 122 tariffs as invalid and unauthorized by law. [4][5] Later reporting states that those tariffs expired at midnight on July 24, 2026. [5] So the operational status is not merely “struck down.” It is enjoined, and then expired.

Round 3: the August case is pending and turns on pretext

AP, via Upper Michigan’s Source, reported on Aug. 3, 2026, that 25 states sued over the administration’s latest tariffs, citing the Supreme Court ruling. [6] Scripps also reported the 25-state challenge and the states’ argument that the administration was trying to revive tariffs under a different legal theory. [7]

The state list reported for the August suit is: New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. [6]

The tariff coverage figures need source labels. The August AP report describes tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on 59 countries and the EU. [6] PIIE describes the third attempt as covering 60 economies and 99% of U.S. imports. [8] Those formulations may be referring to the same general program, but they should not be silently normalized into one unattributed figure.

The practical litigation question is whether the forced-labor label carries the program or exposes it. The states are not simply saying, “the Supreme Court already ruled.” They are saying the administration moved from IEEPA to Section 122 to Section 301 while pursuing the same broad tariff result, and that the latest statutory label should be treated as a pretext. That is a harder, more fact- and record-dependent argument than a one-line citation to Learning Resources.

This tracker has not reviewed the Aug. 3 complaint as a primary document, and no docket number is being supplied here until the filing is pulled from the court record. For now, the reliable status is reported-filed and pending, with the complaint and docket requiring re-verification before any formal citation.

What to recheck before citing the status

• For Round 1, cite the Supreme Court IEEPA decision only for the IEEPA tariffs. Do not use it as a holding on Section 301.
• For Round 2, cite the March coalition and the May 7 CIT injunction separately. The March challenge, the CIT injunction, and the July 24 expiration are three different status facts.
• For Round 3, pull the Aug. 3 complaint and docket before treating the reported filing as a primary-source record.
• Keep the country, economy, trading-partner, and import-coverage figures attached to the source that used them.
• Check for any temporary restraining order, preliminary-injunction motion, stay, transfer, consolidation, or amended complaint before publishing an updated status.

As of Aug. 4, 2026, the docket posture is narrow and sortable: IEEPA is decided, Section 122 is enjoined and expired, and Section 301 is pending. The August case is not a replay in the strict legal sense, and it is not already resolved by the February Supreme Court ruling. It is the third round of the same separation-of-powers dispute, now dependent on whether a court accepts the states’ pretext theory and finds the Section 301 program outside the statute.

References

1. Supreme Court strikes down tariffs, SCOTUSblog, February 2026.
2. Attorney General James Leads Lawsuit to Stop Trump Administration’s Latest Illegal Tariffs, New York State Attorney General, March 5, 2026.
3. Twelve US states announce lawsuit to stop Trump's latest global tariffs, Reuters, March 5, 2026.
4. Another court ruling blocks Trump’s wide-ranging tariffs, News From The States.
5. Federal court rules against new global tariffs Trump imposed after loss at Supreme Court, Indiana Lawyer.
6. 25 states sue over Trump administration’s latest tariffs, citing Supreme Court ruling, AP via Upper Michigan’s Source, Aug. 3, 2026.
7. 25 states sue Trump administration over latest tariffs, citing Supreme Court ruling, Scripps News.
8. Will Trump’s third attempt to impose tariffs survive the courts?, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
9. The remaining questions after the Supreme Court’s tariffs ruling, SCOTUSblog, March 2026.