Democratic Officials Argue Tariffs Are Illegal, While Critics Warn Lawsuit Could Add New Costs For Taxpayers

Friday, March 6, 2026, 11:15 A.M. ET. 5 Minute Read, By Jennifer Hodges, Political Editor: Englebrook Independent News,

TRENTON, NJ.- The State of New Jersey has joined a coalition of more than twenty Democrat-led states in filing a federal lawsuit against the administration of President Donald J. Trump, challenging a new round of global tariffs imposed earlier this year.

The case, filed March 5, 2026, in the U.S. Court of International Trade, alleges that the president exceeded his legal authority in implementing the tariffs without congressional approval.

     New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport announced the state’s participation in the suit alongside attorneys general from states including Oregon, California, New York, Illinois, and Washington. The complaint, formally titled State of Oregon et al. v. Trump et al., seeks an injunction blocking the tariffs and asks the court to declare the administration’s actions unlawful.

     The lawsuit centers on the Trump administration’s decision to impose new across-the-board tariffs on imported goods, beginning at roughly 10 percent and expected to rise to approximately 15 percent. According to the filing, the tariffs were implemented under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows limited presidential action to address balance-of-payments deficits for a maximum period of 150 days.

     State officials argue the statute does not grant the president sweeping authority to impose broad tariffs across the global economy.

Legal Background And Supreme Court Context;

     The new lawsuit follows a significant legal setback for the Trump administration earlier this year.

     In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the president could not rely on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs, determining that the statute did not authorize such taxes on imports.

     That decision effectively struck down earlier tariff policies and reinforced the longstanding constitutional principle that Congress, not the executive branch, holds the power to levy duties and tariffs.

     Following the ruling, the administration shifted its legal strategy by invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act, arguing the tariffs were necessary to address trade imbalances and protect domestic industries.

     However, the coalition of states, including New Jersey, claims the administration is attempting to bypass the Supreme Court’s ruling by relying on a statute that has historically been rarely used and was never intended to justify sweeping global tariffs.

Arguments From New Jersey Officials;

     Governor Mikie Sherrill and Attorney General Davenport framed the lawsuit as a consumer-protection measure, arguing the tariffs would raise prices for American households and businesses.

     “Tariffs raise prices for hard-working families and businesses across New Jersey,” Davenport said in announcing the lawsuit. “We’re going to court to protect our state from these illogical and illegal tariffs.”

     Democratic leaders in Trenton contend the tariffs could increase costs for imported goods, including consumer products and manufacturing inputs, potentially worsening inflationary pressures on households already struggling with rising costs.

Critics Question Political Motives;

     Despite those arguments, critics say the lawsuit reflects a broader strategy by Democratic state officials to challenge nearly every major policy initiative of the Trump administration through the courts.

     Political analysts note that Democratic attorneys general nationwide have filed dozens of lawsuits against federal policies during Trump’s second term, turning state legal offices into a central front in partisan battles between state governments and Washington.

     Opponents also question whether New Jersey, a state already facing one of the highest tax burdens in the nation, should be committing public resources to national policy fights that may ultimately be decided by federal courts or Congress.

     Some critics argue the state’s involvement may amount to little more than political theater designed to signal opposition to the president rather than deliver tangible benefits for New Jersey residents.

Potential Costs For New Jersey Taxpayers;

     Although the state has not publicly disclosed a full projected cost of participating in the litigation, legal experts note that multi-state lawsuits often require significant hours from attorneys’ general staff, outside legal counsel, and administrative support.

     Those costs are ultimately borne by taxpayers through state budgets.

     Large-scale constitutional litigation can extend for months or even years, potentially advancing through multiple levels of federal courts before reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

In complex cases involving trade policy and federal authority, legal costs can easily reach hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars across participating states.

     Critics in New Jersey’s legislature have warned that repeated political lawsuits against federal administrations, regardless of party, risk diverting taxpayer resources away from pressing state concerns such as property taxes, infrastructure, and public safety. 

What Happens Next;

     The case will now proceed before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a federal court based in New York that has exclusive jurisdiction over civil cases involving international trade laws and tariffs.

     If the court grants the states’ request for an injunction, enforcement of the tariffs could be halted while the litigation proceeds.

     However, legal analysts widely expect the case, given its constitutional implications, to ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

     For New Jersey residents, the dispute highlights a broader national debate over trade policy, executive power, and the increasingly frequent use of the courts to resolve political disputes between states and the federal government.

Editor’s Note:

This article was written by Jennifer Hodges, Political Editor, and is based on publicly available court filings, official statements from the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, and reporting regarding the multi-state lawsuit State of Oregon et al. v. Trump et al., filed March 5, 2026, in the U.S. Court of International Trade. Legal proceedings are ongoing, and claims made by the parties in the lawsuit have not yet been adjudicated by the court.