The BLUF - August 4th

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• 25 States Sue Trump Gov Over Latest Global Tariffs

• Detained Former Leader Of Myanmar Meets With Red Cross

• Farage Aims For Military Use To Stop Border Crossings If Elected

25 States Sue Trump Gov Over Latest Global Tariffs

_{By: Atlas}

A coalition of 25 states filed suit Thursday challenging President Donald Trump's newest round of tariffs, arguing the administration's shift to different statutory authorities after the Supreme Court curbed his emergency-powers levies suffers from the same constitutional defect: taxation imposed without Congress.

The complaint, filed in the US Court of International Trade in New York, targets the tariffs Trump rolled out this summer under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the Trade Act, which the administration adopted as workarounds after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize sweeping import taxes. The new duties cover a broad range of goods, and the states argue the administration stretched both statutes far beyond what Congress wrote them to do.

"The Supreme Court told the president he cannot use emergency powers to tax Americans," said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who is leading the coalition alongside Arizona's Kris Mayes. "The administration's response was to grab two different statutes and do the same thing. The Constitution doesn't allow a president to shop for authority until he finds a label that fits."

The suit asks the court to vacate the tariffs and enjoin their collection, and it seeks refunds of duties already paid — a remedy with substantial fiscal stakes given that importers have paid billions since the new levies took effect.

The Legal Theory After the IEEPA Ruling

The case builds directly on the Supreme Court's June decision, which held that IEEPA's grant of authority to "regulate" imports during a national emergency does not extend to imposing tariffs of unlimited scope and duration. The 6-3 ruling invalidated the "Liberation Day" reciprocal tariffs and the fentanyl-related levies on Canada, Mexico, and China, and left the government facing refund claims that the Treasury Department has estimated could approach $100 billion.

The administration responded within weeks by reissuing many of the same duties under alternative authorities. Section 232 allows tariffs on imports the Commerce Department finds threaten national security, historically applied to specific sectors like steel and aluminum. Section 301 permits duties against countries found to engage in unfair trade practices, the basis for the China tariffs dating to Trump's first term.

The states contend the new proclamations are pretextual — that the administration recycled economy-wide tariffs under sector-specific statutes without conducting the investigations, findings, and procedural steps each law requires. The complaint alleges Commerce compressed what are typically months-long Section 232 investigations into weeks, applied national security findings to consumer goods with no defense nexus, and used Section 301 determinations that were never updated to reflect current conditions.

"Congress wrote these statutes narrowly on purpose," the complaint states. "They are not blank checks, and they cannot be combined into the general tariff power the Supreme Court just held the president does not possess."

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to the filing. White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the tariffs' legality, saying the administration "is using authorities Congress expressly provided and that courts have upheld for decades," and accused the states of "asking judges to run American trade policy."

Familiar Coalition, Higher Stakes

The lineup largely mirrors the Democratic-led coalition that won the IEEPA case, expanded by governors and attorneys general who joined after the June ruling. The states argue they are injured both as importers themselves — purchasing equipment, vehicles, and supplies subject to the duties — and through harm to their economies and tax bases.

The filing cites state procurement data showing increased costs for road construction materials, medical supplies, and school technology purchases. It also points to the pass-through effects on residents, referencing Federal Reserve and academic estimates that the combined tariff regime costs typical households more than $2,000 annually.

Several states in the coalition are led by officials weighing or mounting 2026 campaigns, and Republican attorneys general criticized the suit as election-year positioning. But the case also drew support from business groups that stayed out of earlier rounds, with the National Retail Federation and a coalition of small importers filing parallel challenges. Trade attorneys note that Section 232 and 301 tariffs have generally survived judicial review in the past — though never, they add, when deployed at this scale or this fast.

What Courts Have Said So Far

The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over tariff challenges, and its rulings appeal to the Federal Circuit — the same path the IEEPA litigation traveled before reaching the Supreme Court. Early district-level skirmishes over the reissued tariffs have produced mixed signals: one CIT panel declined to block the new steel duties pending litigation, while another ordered expedited briefing on whether the Commerce investigations satisfied statutory requirements.

Legal scholars are divided on the states' prospects. The Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling leaned on the major questions doctrine, reasoning that Congress does not delegate decisions of vast economic significance through vague language. The states argue that logic applies with equal force to stretching sector-specific statutes economy-wide; the government counters that Sections 232 and 301, unlike IEEPA, expressly authorize tariffs and prescribe procedures the administration followed.

The refund question adds urgency. Importers paid duties throughout the IEEPA litigation and are still navigating the reimbursement process the ruling triggered. A second round of invalidated tariffs would compound the administrative task and the fiscal exposure, a point the states press in seeking early resolution.

The Broader Trade Picture

The legal fight lands amid a trade agenda already in flux. The administration has continued negotiating bilateral deals — including partial tariff relief for Brazil on beef and coffee — while using the reissued duties as leverage. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said tariff revenue remains central to the administration's fiscal plans, projecting hundreds of billions annually, figures the pending litigation could unsettle.

Oral argument on the states' motion for a preliminary injunction has not been scheduled. Both sides have signaled they expect the dispute to reach the Supreme Court, likely on an expedited track given the sums involved. Whatever the outcome, the case will help define how far a president can go in repurposing decades-old trade statutes — a question the June ruling raised without fully answering.

Subscribe to the BLUF to read the rest.