A coalition of 24 states led by Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones won a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, invalidating illegal tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the tariffs were unauthorized by law, as a trade deficit does not constitute the required 'large and serious balance-of-payment deficits' under the statute. The ruling prevents the administration from enforcing the 10% worldwide tariffs on most products.
The U.S. Court of International Trade invalidated the 10% worldwide tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, ruling they were unauthorized by law. The administration is prohibited from enforcing these tariffs.
This enforcement action concerns the invalidation of federal tariffs on imported goods, not privacy or data-related vendor agreements. In-house legal teams handling supply chain, import/export, or vendor agreements involving international goods should review clauses related to tariff shifts, trade compliance, and force majeure in the event of changing trade policies. Privacy-related contract clauses (data processing, breach notification, consent) are not impacted by this action.
Entity
Trump Administration
Industry
Other"Trump Administration"
"International Emergency Economic Powers Act"
"Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974"
"the Trump Administration’s tariffs were unlawful from the start"
"Published on: May 8, 2026"
"coalition of 24 states"
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. Court of International Trade granted summary judgment to the states, ruling the tariffs illegal as they did not meet the statutory requirement of “large and serious balance-of-payment deficits.” The court invalidated the 10 percent tariffs on most global products, barring their enforcement.
Health enforcement action: Attorney General Rayfield led a coalition of 22 states and D.C. to secure a federal court order blocking the Trump Administration from threatening to cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to healthcare providers that offer gender-affirming care to youth with gender dysphoria. The court ruled the administration's actions unlawful, protecting access to care and upholding the right to make personal healthcare decisions.
Consumer protection enforcement action where Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led a coalition of 24 states in filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Trump Administration's imposition of tariffs on imported goods. The states argue the tariffs are unlawful under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, as they cause financial harm to consumers and state governments by increasing prices and procurement costs.
Consumer protection lawsuit led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, on behalf of a coalition of 24 states and two governors, challenging the Trump Administration's imposition of worldwide tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The suit alleges the administration is acting without legal authority, violating the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional separation of powers, and causing immediate financial harm to American consumers and businesses through increased prices.
New Jersey, serving as co-lead of a 22-state coalition, filed a motion for summary judgment on January 22, 2026, seeking an expedited order to stop the Trump Administration from defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) before March 2026. The states argue that defunding the CFPB would undermine federal and state consumer protection efforts, including states’ reliance on CFPB consumer complaint data and mortgage lending data for enforcement actions. This motion builds on a December 2025 lawsuit filed by the same coalition challenging the administration’s threats to withhold CFPB funding.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell filed a motion to enforce a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration's demands for personal data of SNAP recipients. The court previously blocked such demands, but the administration renewed its request, threatening to withhold funding. The AG seeks to ensure compliance with federal privacy laws and protect SNAP recipients' sensitive information.