California officials launched litigation this week against the Trump administration that seeks to overturn a broad array of new tariffs they argue are legally unfounded and economically damaging. The lawsuit challenges executive actions taken earlier this year to impose import duties on goods from China, Mexico, and other major trading partners, and claims those actions exceed presidential authority and violate the U.S. Constitution.
In a complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom allege that the 2025 tariffs, many of them implemented via national emergency powers, disrupt global supply chains, inflate consumer costs, and undercut California’s critical trade sectors.
“The President’s chaotic and haphazard implementation of tariffs is not only deeply troubling, it’s illegal. As the fifth largest economy in the world, California understands global trade policy is not just a game,” Bonta said in a statement. “Californians are bracing for fallout from the impact of the President’s choices – from farmers in the Central Valley, to small businesses in Sacramento, and worried families at the kitchen table — this game the President is playing has very real consequences for Californians across our state.”
The challenged measures stem from more than a dozen executive orders and presidential proclamations issued between February and April. They include new or increased tariffs on Chinese e-commerce shipments, retaliatory duties in response to foreign trade practices, and emergency powers used to target the flow of synthetic opioids and other illicit goods.
One of the most consequential policies, signed April 2, ends long-standing duty-free treatment for small international packages from China and Hong Kong. Effective May 2, parcels worth $800 or less—the threshold for the U.S. “de minimis” exemption—will face either a 30% tariff or a flat-rate fee of $25 to $50 per shipment. The administration has said the change is aimed at “deceptive shipping practices” linked to the fentanyl trade. International mail carriers are now required to collect and remit these duties, along with detailed customs data.
In its proclamation, the White House asserted that small parcels are often used to conceal synthetic drugs. California officials contend that the government failed to show that legitimate commercial shipments contribute to those threats. The lawsuit argues that the policy will disproportionately hurt online sellers, small businesses, and lower-income consumers who rely on affordable imports.
California is the second-largest exporter among U.S. states, with over $183 billion in goods exports in 2024, according to the California Chamber of Commerce. Key products include computers, electronics, medical instruments, and transportation equipment—many of which are subject to new import taxes under the executive orders.
The state’s biggest trading partners – Mexico, Canada, China, and Japan – account for tens of billions in annual two-way trade. As of 2022, trade supported an estimated 584,000 jobs in California, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. More than 60,000 California businesses export goods, and 95% of those are small or medium-sized firms.
The Trump administration has defended the tariffs as part of a broader national security strategy. A February 2025 proclamation cited threats at the southern border and the cross-border flow of narcotics, while another order in March targeted Chinese suppliers linked to synthetic opioid ingredients. Other orders established “reciprocal tariffs” and increased rates on existing imports.
The lawsuit contends that the administration invoked emergency authority as a blanket justification, sidestepping statutory safeguards that require congressional involvement, public comment, and formal agency review. The complaint asserts that “the President may not rule by fiat” and contends that the challenged executive actions “represent a vast expansion of Presidential power not authorized by IEEPA or any other statute.”
The tariffs come amid a rising U.S. trade deficit. In February 2025, the U.S. posted a monthly goods and services deficit of $67.6 billion. For all of 2023, the annual goods deficit was $773.4 billion, according to BEA data.
An analysis by the Yale Budget Lab projected that the 2025 tariffs would lower real household income by an average of $1,200 and reduce U.S. GDP by $225 billion through 2026. The economic burden, the report concluded, would fall heaviest on low-income families.
A Business Roundtable study has found that one in five American jobs is tied to international trade, with export-related jobs paying, on average, 18% more than those not connected to global commerce. California’s lawsuit argues that the tariffs place those jobs at risk without satisfying the legal requirements for executive action.
“President Trump’s unlawful tariffs are wreaking chaos on California families, businesses, and our economy – driving up prices and threatening jobs,” Newsom said.”We’re standing up for American families who can’t afford to let the chaos continue.”
The lawsuit asks the court to declare the executive orders unlawful, block their enforcement, and prevent future tariff measures based solely on presidential declarations. The Department of Justice had not filed a response as of Friday evening.
About Author
Be First to Comment