Pa. Gov. Josh Shapiro joins other states challenging Trump’s latest swing at global tariffs

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro joined Democratic leaders from nearly two dozen states in challenging President Donald Trump’s latest global tariffs.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday, Shapiro and the other state leaders argue Trump’s planned 15% tariffs, which come after his last round of global tariffs were blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court, overstep his powers.

“The Supreme Court got it right — but instead of following the law, Trump decided to double down,” Shapiro said in a statement.

“This President’s tariffs have done nothing but cause chaos and raise prices for our farmers, small businesses, and families,” Shapiro said. “I’ve gone to court before to protect Pennsylvanians from the costs of this disastrous trade war — and I’m ready to do it again.”

The suit, which is being led by the attorneys general from Oregon, Arizona, California and New York, marks the 21st suit Shapiro has filed or joined against the administration during Trump’s second term, including two suits he’s led.

New Jersey and Delaware, which have Democratic attorneys general, also joined the suit.

Trump’s first round of tariffs sent shock waves through the U.S. economy as prices rose. Exports, including Pennsylvania’s lumber sales, also suffered.

Shapiro, who is up for reelection this year, has long highlighted his willingness to go up against Trump in court. That record began during Trump’s first term when Shapiro was state attorney general.

In Trump’s second term Shapiro has repeatedly stepped in to sue on behalf of Pennsylvania when Republican Attorney General Dave Sunday has not.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, the only other governor signed onto the case, faces similar circumstances in his Republican-leaning state. Both Beshear and Shapiro are seen as likely contenders for the Democratic nomination in 2028.

Trump has said the tariffs are essential to reduce America’s longstanding trade deficits. He imposed duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court struck down tariffs he imposed last year under an emergency powers law.

Trump criticized the high court during last week’s State of the Union address, calling the ruling “very unfortunate.” Trump said in the speech that his new tariffs would be “a little more complex but actually probably better.”

Section 122, which has never been invoked, allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15%. They are limited to five months unless extended by Congress.

The new suit argues that Trump can’t pivot to Section 122 because it was intended to be used only in specific, limited circumstances — not for sweeping import taxes. It also contends the tariffs will drive up costs for states, businesses and consumers.

Many of those states also successfully sued over Trump’s tariffs imposed under a different law: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Four days after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping IEEPA tariffs Feb. 20, Trump invoked Section 122 to slap 10% tariffs on foreign goods. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant told CNBC on Wednesday that the administration would raise the levies to the 15% limit this week.

The Democratic states and other critics say the president can’t use Section 122 as a replacement for the defunct tariffs to combat the trade deficit.

The Section 122 provision is aimed at what it calls “fundamental international payments problems.’’ At issue is whether that wording covers trade deficits, the gap between what the U.S. sells other countries and what it buys from them.

Section 122 arose from the financial crises that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. dollar was tied to gold. Other countries were dumping dollars in exchange for gold at a set rate, risking a collapse of the U.S. currency and chaos in financial markets. But the dollar is no longer linked to gold, so critics say Section 122 is obsolete.

Awkwardly for Trump, his own Justice Department argued in a court filing last year that the president needed to invoke the emergency powers act because Section 122 did “not have any obvious application’’ in fighting trade deficits, which it called “conceptually distinct’’ from balance-of-payment issues.

Still, some legal analysts say the Trump administration has a stronger case this time.

“The legal reality is that courts will likely provide President Donald Trump substantially more deference regarding Section 122 than they did to his previous tariffs under IEEPA,’’ Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown University’s Institute of International Economic Law, wrote in a commentary Wednesday.

The specialized Court of International Trade in New York, which will hear the states’ lawsuit, wrote last year in its own decision striking down the emergency-powers tariffs that Trump didn’t need them because Section 122 was available to combat trade deficits.

Trump does have other legal authorities he can use to impose tariffs, and some have already survived court tests. Duties that Trump imposed on Chinese imports during his first term under Section 301 of the same 1974 trade act are still in place.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.