Lansing, MI — Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined a coalition of more than 20 states asking a federal court to block the Trump administration’s latest round of tariffs, arguing the policy is illegal and will drive up costs for American consumers, businesses, and state governments.
The legal challenge, filed Friday, March 13, 2026 in the U.S. Court of International Trade, asks judges to immediately stop enforcement of tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The motion seeks either summary judgment in favor of the states or a preliminary injunction preventing the federal government from collecting the tariffs while the case proceeds.
The case, State of Oregon, et al. v. Trump, et al., is being heard by a three-judge panel in New York and challenges a proclamation issued by President Donald Trump in February imposing a 10 percent tariff on most imports entering the United States for a 150-day period.
Michigan is among 24 states participating in the lawsuit.
In a statement announcing the filing, Nessel argued the tariffs exceed presidential authority and will ultimately raise prices for everyday goods.
“Every court that reviewed President Trump’s first wave of tariffs agreed that he overstepped his authority,” Nessel said. “Now he’s attempting to use a different law to impose another round of illegal tariffs despite losing in court, and the result will once again be higher costs for basic necessities.”
According to the court filing, the Constitution grants Congress—not the president—the power to impose taxes and tariffs. While Congress has delegated limited authority in certain circumstances, the states argue those circumstances do not exist in this case.
The lawsuit comes after the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful. The states argue the administration is now attempting to achieve the same policy through a different statute.
In February, President Trump issued Proclamation 11012 imposing a temporary import surcharge of 10 percent on most imported products worldwide. The tariffs took effect on February 24 and could remain in place for up to 150 days unless extended by Congress.
The states argue Section 122 of the Trade Act was designed for a narrow economic scenario that no longer exists.
Specifically, the law allows tariffs only when the United States is facing “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits” tied to international currency crises. The filing argues those conditions were tied to the now-defunct Bretton Woods monetary system, which relied on fixed currency exchange rates and gold-backed reserves.
Since the collapse of that system in the 1970s and the adoption of floating exchange rates, economists say such deficits no longer arise in the same way. As a result, the states argue the legal trigger for Section 122 tariffs simply does not exist.
The motion also claims the administration is mischaracterizing economic data by confusing trade deficits with balance-of-payments deficits.
A trade deficit—when a country imports more goods than it exports—is only one part of the broader balance-of-payments calculation, which also includes investment flows. The filing notes that while the United States runs a trade deficit, it also receives massive foreign investment that offsets those numbers.
Because of those investment inflows, the lawsuit argues the United States does not have the kind of balance-of-payments deficit required to legally invoke Section 122.
The states also argue the tariffs violate statutory limits requiring that any import surcharge be applied uniformly and without discrimination. The proclamation, however, includes numerous exemptions for certain countries and more than 80 pages of product-specific exclusions.
Beyond the legal arguments, the filing details the financial impact states expect to face if the tariffs remain in place.
Economic analysis submitted to the court estimates state governments could collectively pay at least $748 million per year in additional costs due to higher prices on imported equipment, supplies, and materials used in public projects and government operations.
Those costs could affect everything from infrastructure projects and technology purchases to university research equipment.
For Michigan, a state with a major manufacturing base and supply chains tied to international trade, officials say tariffs can ripple through industries that rely on imported parts and raw materials.
The coalition challenging the tariffs includes the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Michigan, along with the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
The court has scheduled in-person oral arguments on the motion for April 10, 2026, in New York City.
If the states succeed in obtaining an injunction, enforcement of the tariffs could be halted while the broader case proceeds.
The filing argues that outcome is necessary to prevent ongoing financial harm to state governments and consumers while the courts determine whether the president’s actions exceeded the authority granted by Congress.
Discuss this on our Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14ayTaCcZoe/