California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta have jointly filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging President Donald Trump’s authority to impose widespread tariffs using emergency powers. The legal action aims to have the tariffs declared void and prevent their continued enforcement.

The lawsuit contends that Trump’s use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement tariffs is unlawful and exceeds presidential authority. It argues that these measures have caused immediate and irreversible damage to California, affecting its role as the nation’s largest economy, agricultural hub, and center for manufacturing. The state's leadership emphasized that the tariffs are driving up costs, disrupting supply chains, and inflicting billions of dollars in losses.

In an official statement, Newsom criticized the tariffs as “unlawful” and warned that they are harming California families and businesses, leading to higher prices and job insecurity. Attorney General Bonta echoed the sentiment, calling the tariffs "deeply troubling and illegal." He warned that the state is already experiencing economic fallout, from farmers in the Central Valley to small businesses and households across California. Bonta emphasized the seriousness of trade policy, stating that global trade is not a game and defending the need to protect the state’s economy and livelihoods.

The lawsuit challenges the President’s imposition of tariffs on countries like Mexico, China, and Canada, as well as a proposed blanket 10% tariff. It notes that while the IEEPA allows the President to take certain actions in response to foreign threats once a national emergency is declared, the statute does not authorize the imposition of tariffs. The administration’s reliance on this law to introduce tariffs marks an unprecedented use of the act, the lawsuit claims.

Additionally, the complaint invokes the U.S. Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine,” which holds that executive actions with significant economic or political impact must be clearly authorized by Congress. The suit cites previous rulings, including those against President Obama’s Clean Power Plan and President Biden’s student loan forgiveness initiative, as examples of the judiciary blocking major executive actions based on vague statutory interpretations.

Earlier in the month, President Trump introduced reciprocal tariffs on countries with which the U.S. has trade deficits, sparking strong global market reactions. Equities in Asia and Europe experienced significant declines, and U.S. markets also took a hit. Though Trump later paused the tariffs for 90 days amid ongoing trade negotiations, the economic and political uncertainty persists.

According to a White House fact sheet, China’s retaliatory tariffs have reached as high as 245% on U.S. imports, up from a previous rate of 145%. The administration’s “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” aims to address what Trump describes as unfair and non-reciprocal trade agreements. The President has reaffirmed his commitment to tariff reciprocity, vowing to match foreign tariffs, including those imposed by India, to promote fairer trade terms for the U.S.